Case ID: f-appx_452/html/0072-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Concepcion Yamileth ROSERO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-1104-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Feb. 9, 2012.
    Concepcion Yamileth Rosero, pro se.
    Tony West, Stephen J. Flynn & Kathryn M. McKinney, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Present: WALKER, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Concepcion Yamileth Rosero, pro se, seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an Immigration Judge’s decision to deny her applications for adjustment of status and a waiver of inadmissibility. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts of the case, the procedural posture, and the issues on appeal.

“We ... lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary denial of a waiver of inadmissibility under INA § 212(h), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h).” Bayoumi v. Mukasey, 288 Fed.Appx. 769, 770 (2d Cir.2008) (summary order) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 331-32 n. 11 (2d Cir.2006)). Although we retain jurisdiction to review “constitutional claims or questions of law,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), “a petitioner cannot us[e] the rhetoric of a constitutional claim or question of law to disguise what is essentially a quarrel about fact-finding or the exercise of discretion,” Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35, 39 (2d Cir.2008) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, the legal or constitutional claim must at least be “colorable” in order to confer jurisdiction. Id. at 40.

Here, we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s finding that Rosero failed to establish extreme hardship because Rosero fails to assert a colorable constitutional claim or question of law. We note only that with respect to Rosero’s claims regarding her sons’s alleged medical conditions and the Immigration Judge’s alleged refusal to allow her husband to testify, we cannot consider evidence that is not in the record before us. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A). And we decline to remand the case to the agency for further consideration of any new evidence, given that Rosero can file a motion to reopen. See Xiao Xing Ni v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 260, 269-71 (2d Cir.2007).

Accordingly, the petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals is DISMISSED.