Martinez-Barrientos v. Holder

• Decision Date: 13 May 2014
• Docket Number: Agency No. A040-197-600,No. 12-73570,12-73570
• Parties: EDGAR RAUL MARTINEZ-BARRIENTOS, a.k.a. Edgar Raul Martinez, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

EDGAR RAUL MARTINEZ-BARRIENTOS, a.k.a. Edgar RaulMartinez, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 12-73570

Agency No. A040-197-600

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FILED: May 28, 2014

Submitted May 13, 2014^**

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

MEMORANDUM^*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Edgar Raul Martinez-Barrientos, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his applications for

Page 2

cancellation of removal and waivers of inadmissibility under section 212(h) and former section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) to review the BIA's determination that Martinez-Barrientos did not merit relief from removal as a matter of discretion. See Mendoza v. Holder, 623 F.3d 1299, 1302 (9th Cir. 2010) (section 212(h) waiver); Bermudez v. Holder, 586 F.3d 1167, 1169 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (cancellation of removal); Palma-Rojas v. INS, 244 F.3d 1191, 1192 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (former section 212(c) waiver). Martinez-Barrientos raises no colorable constitutional claim or question of law that would invoke our jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). See Bermudez, 586 F.3d at 1169 ("'[A]ny challenge of [the BIA's] discretionary determination must present a colorable claim' in order for this court to exercise jurisdiction." (citation omitted)); Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir. 2009) ("To be colorable in this context, . . . the claim must have some possible validity.").

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

*. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

**. The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).