Jose Estrella-Vasquez v. Loretta E. Lynch ( 2017 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 24 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ESTRELLA-VASQUEZ, AKA Jose No. 15-71053
Leonel Estrella-Vasquez,
Agency No. A201-240-305
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 18, 2017**
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Jose Estrella-Vasquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s denial of cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. See Coyt v. Holder, 593 F.3d 902, 905 (9th Cir.
*
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).
2010). We review de novo questions of law and constitutional claims. Khan v.
Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
We are not persuaded by Estrella-Vasquez’s challenge to 8 C.F.R.
§ 1240.26(c)(3)(i)-(iii). See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(b), (e); cf. Garfias-Rodriguez v.
Holder, 702 F.3d 504, 523-28 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (8 U.S.C. § 1229c(e) gives
the Attorney General discretion to limit eligibility for voluntary departure, and
promulgation of 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(i) was a proper exercise of the Attorney
General’s authority).
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
Estrella-Vasquez failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his
qualifying relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.
2005). Estrella-Vasquez’s contention that the agency failed to consider relevant
evidence of hardship is not supported by the record and thus does not invoke our
jurisdiction. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (absent
a colorable legal or constitutional claim, the court lacks jurisdiction to review the
agency’s discretionary determination regarding hardship); Martinez-Rosas, 424
F.3d at 930 (“To be colorable in this context, . . . the claim must have some
possible validity.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
2 15-71053
To the extent Estrella-Vasquez contends the agency violated due process by
not reinstating voluntary departure, his claim fails for lack of error. See Lata v.
INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail
on a due process challenge).
Estrella-Vasquez’s motion for judicial notice is denied. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(4)(A) (judicial review is limited to the administrative record); Dent v.
Holder, 627 F.3d 365, 371 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating standard for review of
out-of-record evidence).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 15-71053