Ricardo Lopez-Aguilar v. Jefferson Sessions, III ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 23 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICARDO LOPEZ-AGUILAR, AKA John No. 16-72472
Doe,
Agency No. A206-784-349
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 15, 2018**
Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Ricardo Lopez-Aguilar, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal.
*
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).
We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
Lopez-Aguilar lacks good moral character under the catch-all provision of
8 U.S.C. § 1101(f). See Moran v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1089, 1091 (9th Cir. 2005)
(the court lacks jurisdiction to review discretionary determinations of moral
character), overruled on other grounds by Sanchez v. Holder, 560 F.3d 1028 (9th
Cir. 2009). Lopez-Aguilar’s contentions do not amount to a colorable
constitutional claim or question of law that would invoke our jurisdiction. See
Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005) (“To be colorable
in this context, . . . the claim must have some possible validity.” (citation and
international quotation marks omitted)); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990
(9th Cir. 2010) (agency need not write an exegesis on every contention).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Lopez-Aguilar’s unexhausted contention
that the agency improperly relied on the Form I-213 in its good moral character
determination. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (this
court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
2 16-72472