Miguel Arroyo-Solorio v. Loretta E. Lynch ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 29 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MIGUEL ARROYO-SOLORIO, No. 13-72560
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-623-202
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Miguel Arroyo-Solorio, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal.
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process
*
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).
claims. Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006). We dismiss in
part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination that Arroyo-
Solorio failed to demonstrate the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship
necessary for cancellation of removal. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642,
644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order) (“[A]bsent a colorable legal or constitutional claim, we
lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that an alien
failed to prove that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual
hardship. . . .”).
Arroyo-Solorio’s contention that the agency improperly weighed his
evidence of hardship is not a colorable question of law that would invoke our
jurisdiction. See De Mercado v. Mukasey, 566 F.3d 810, 816 (9th Cir. 2009).
Although Arroyo-Solorio contends the BIA failed to consider all of his
evidence, he has not overcome the presumption that the BIA did review the record.
See Fernandez, 439 F.3d at 603.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
2 13-72560