727 Fed.Appx. 353 (9th Cir. 2018), 16-72305, Preciado v. Sessions
|Citation:||727 Fed.Appx. 353|
|Party Name:||David Alejandro Herrera PRECIADO, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.|
|Attorney:||David Alejandro Herrera Preciado, Pro Se Allison Frayer, 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|
|Judge Panel:||Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||June 18, 2018|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
Submitted June 12, 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Governing the citation to unpublished opinions please refer to federal rules of appellate procedure rule 32.1.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.
David Alejandro Herrera Preciado, Pro Se
Allison Frayer, 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
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, Agency No. AXXX-XX8-288
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
David Alejandro Herrera Preciado, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judges decision denying cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agencys discretionary determination that Herrera Preciado failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his qualifying relative. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012). Herrera Preciados contentions that the agency failed to adequately evaluate evidence of hardship and failed to consider material evidence of hardship are not supported by the record and do not amount to colorable claims that would invoke our jurisdiction. See id. (absent a colorable legal or constitutional claim, the court lacks jurisdiction to review the agencys discretionary determination regarding hardship); Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005) ("To be colorable in this context...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP