EDGAR GUERRA HERNANDEZ V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 20-72868 (9th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 23 2022 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EDGAR GUERRA HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 20-72868 Agency No. A215-854-229 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 17, 2022** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Edgar Guerra Hernandez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). review de novo questions of law. Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016). We dismiss the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that Guerra Hernandez did not show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative for purposes of cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005). We reject Guerra Hernandez’s contention that the BIA failed to address his argument that the IJ applied an incorrect hardship standard, and the petition does not raise a colorable legal or constitutional claim over which we retain jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Martinez-Rosas, 424 F.3d at 930; Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency need not write an exegesis on every contention). The stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 2 20-72868

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.