Case ID: f-appx_540/html/0745-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Efrain Gomez VALENZUELA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-72214.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 24, 2013.
    
    Filed Oct. 1, 2013.
    Christian De Olivas, De Olivas Law Firm APLC, Placentia, CA, for Petitioner.
    
      OIL, Elizabeth Do Kurlan, Trial, 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: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Efrain Gomez Valenzuela, a native and citizen of Mexico and lawful permanent resident, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing, upon reconsideration, his appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of cancellation of removal as a matter of discretion. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination that Gomez Valenzuela’s application for cancellation of removal did not warrant a favorable exercise of discretion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)© (barring review of denials of discretionary relief). Gomez Valenzuela’s contention that he was denied meaningful review is not supported by the record and therefore is not a colorable claim invoking our jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.8d 926, 980 (9th Cir.2005) (“[TJraditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not constitute color-able constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.