Case ID: f-appx_210/html/0619-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Effen CARDOZA VILLAGRANA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 05-70939, 05-73509.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 4, 2006 .
    Filed Dec. 8, 2006.
    Jonathan M. Kaufman, Esq., San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Douglas E. Ginsburg, Esq., John D. Williams, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Efren Cardoza Villagrana, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming an immigration judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal; Cardoza Villagrana also petitions for review of the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen. We dismiss in part, and deny in part.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Cardoza Villagrana’s challenge to the agency’s discretionary determination that he failed to demonstrate exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his qualifying relative. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir.2005). Moreover, Cardoza Villagrana has failed to raise a colorable constitutional or legal claim to invoke our jurisdiction over this petition for review. See Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001).

Similarly, Cardoza Villagrana has not demonstrated that the BIA abused its discretion in denying his motion to reopen. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 596-99 (9th Cir.2006).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.