Case ID: f-appx_667/html/0901-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rocael Mendoza GOMEZ, aka Carlos Roberto Martinez, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-73552
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 26, 2016 
    
    August 2, 2016
    Rosana Cheung, Law Office of Rosana Kit Wai Cheung, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Victor Matthew Lawrence, I, Esquire, Assistant Director, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER,. CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rocael Mendoza Gomez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that Mendoza Gomez failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005). Mendoza Gomez’s contention that the agency did not consider the future impact of his removal on his children lacks support in the record and is not sufficiently colorable to invoke our jurisdiction. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (absent a colorable legal or constitutional claim, the court lacks jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary hardship determination); Martinez-Rosas, 424 F.3d at 930 (“To be colorable in this context, ... the claim must have some possible validity.” (citation omitted)).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.