Jesus Navarro v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 563 F. App'x 544 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                              NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FILED
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                          MAR 14 2014
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    JESUS JASSO NAVARRO,                             No. 12-71291
    Petitioner,                       Agency No. A077-970-851
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted March 10, 2014**
    Before:        PREGERSON, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    Jesus Jasso Navarro, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
    review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
    immigration judge’s denial of cancellation of removal as a matter of discretion.
    *
    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).
    12-71291
    Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in
    part the petition for review.
    In his opening brief, Navarro fails to address, and therefore has waived any
    challenge to, the BIA’s removability determination. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,
    
    94 F.3d 1256
    , 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding issues that are not specifically
    raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).
    We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s denial of cancellation of removal in
    the exercise of discretion. See Bermudez v. Holder, 
    586 F.3d 1167
    , 1169 (9th Cir.
    2009) (per curiam). Moreover, Jasso Navarro’s contention that he feels the United
    States is the best place for him is not a sufficiently colorable constitutional claim or
    question of law to trigger our jurisdiction. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 
    552 F.3d 975
    , 978 (9th Cir. 2009) (“To be colorable in this context, the violation need
    not be substantial, but the claim must have some possible validity.” (citation and
    internal quotation marks omitted)).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
    2                                     12-71291
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-71291

Citation Numbers: 563 F. App'x 544

Judges: Leavy, Murguia, Pregerson

Filed Date: 3/14/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/31/2023