Yi Ma v. Merrick Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 22 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YI MA, No. 20-72120
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-271-175
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 17, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: TASHIMA, HURWITZ, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Yi Ma petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from an order of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying
adjustment of status. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review “any judgment” regarding the denial of an
*
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).
application for adjustment of status, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), 1255(j), except to
the extent a petition for review poses “constitutional claims or questions of law,” id.§ 1252(a)(2)(D).
Although Ma contends that the IJ violated his constitutional due process rights
by effectively making a frivolousness finding without complying with certain
procedural requirements, see Fernandes v. Holder, 619 F.3d 1069, 1076 (9th Cir.
2010), the IJ made no such finding. Instead, she weighed the equities of Ma’s case
and found that they did not warrant a favorable exercise of discretion because of
Ma’s connection to a fraud scheme. Ma’s real argument is that this weighing of the
equities was an abuse of discretion, but we lack jurisdiction to review that claim.
Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[P]etitioner may not
create the jurisdiction that Congress chose to remove simply by cloaking an abuse
of discretion argument in constitutional garb.”); Bazua-Cota v. Gonzales, 466 F.3d
747, 748–49 (9th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). To the extent Ma challenges the IJ’s
factual finding that he was connected to the fraud scheme, we likewise have no
jurisdiction. See Patel v. Garland, 142 S. Ct. 1614, 1623–24, 1627 (2022).
PETITION DISMISSED.
2