Case ID: f-appx_643/html/0645-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Carlos Ovidio AGUILAR-MEJIA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-72220.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 15, 2016.
    
    Filed March 22, 2016.
    Antonio M. Zaldana, Law Office of Antonio M. Zaldana, Whittier, CA, for Petitioner. Agency No. [ AXXX-XXX-XXX ].
    Michele Yvette Frances Sarko, Esquire, OIL, 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: GOODWIN, LEAVY, 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

Carlos Ovidio Aguilar-Mejia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming an immigration judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that Aguilar-Mejia failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See De Mercado v. Mukasey, 566 F.3d 810, 814 (9th Cir.2009). Aguilar-Mejia’s contentions that the agency committed legal error in not conducting a future-oriented hardship analysis and violated due process by failing to consider documentary evidence lack any support in the record and thus do not invoke 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 determination regarding hardship); Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005) (“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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.