Case ID: f-appx_604/html/0605-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jose Guadalupe SALCIDO-RIOS, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-71265.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 13, 2015.
    
    Filed May 20, 2015.
    Michael Franquinha, Aguirre Law Group APC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
    Matthew Albert Connelly, Trial, Oil, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent..
    Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Guadalupe Salcido-Rios, 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 applications for adjustment of status and a waiver of inadmissibility under former section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and denying his motion to remand. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 921 (9th Cir.2007). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

This court generally lacks jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary denial of a waiver under former section 212(c). See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). Although we retain jurisdiction over questions of law, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), Salcido-Rios’ contention that the agency erred as a matter of law by failing to consider all the relevant factors-in exercising its discretion is unavailing. Salcido-Rios’ remaining challenges to the agency’s discretionary denial of a waiver under section 212(c) are not colorable constitutional or legal challenges that would invoke our jurisdiction. Bermudez v. Holder, 586 F.3d 1167, 1169 (9th Cir.2009) (“‘[A]ny challenge of [the agency’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 DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is riot precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.