713 Fed.Appx. 607 (9th Cir. 2018), 16-72636, Soto-Soto v. Sessions
|Citation:||713 Fed.Appx. 607|
|Party Name:||Nicanor SOTO-SOTO, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.|
|Attorney:||Vikram Badrinath, Esquire, Attorney, Vikram Badrinath, PC, Tucson, AZ, for Petitioner Laura M.L. Maroldy, Trial Attorney, Lindsay Corliss, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department o...|
|Judge Panel:||Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||February 22, 2018|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
Submitted February 13, 2018 [*]
Governing the citation to unpublished opinions please refer to federal rules of appellate procedure rule 32.1. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 9th Cir. Rule 36-3.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, Agency No. A201-162-095
Vikram Badrinath, Esquire, Attorney, Vikram Badrinath, PC, Tucson, AZ, for Petitioner
Laura M.L. Maroldy, Trial Attorney, Lindsay Corliss, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Nicanor Soto-Soto, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judges ("IJ") decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo constitutional claims and questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Contrary to Soto-Sotos contention, the agency applied the correct legal standard and did not fail to sufficiently explain its reasoning. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010).
We reject Soto-Sotos unsupported contention that the IJ was not neutral.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agencys discretionary determination that Soto-Soto failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his qualifying relatives. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005); see also Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 980-81 (9th Cir. 2009) (the court lacks jurisdiction to review application of the exceptional...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP