NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CYNTHIA SURATOS LORICA, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Nos. 16-71404

 16-73864 

 17-71010 

Agency No. A095-271-411 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of Orders of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 12, 2019**

Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

In these consolidated petitions for review, Cynthia Suratos Lorica, a native 

and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) 

decision denying her applications for adjustment of status and a waiver of 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAR 19 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-71010 

inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h) (No. 16-71404), and denying her motions 

to reopen (No. 16-73864) and reconsider (No. 17-71010). Our jurisdiction is 

governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a 

motion to reopen or reconsider, and review de novo questions of law. Mohammed 

v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in 

part the petitions for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of Lorica’s applications 

for adjustment of status and a waiver of inadmissibility where the agency denied 

relief as a matter of discretion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). While the court 

would retain jurisdiction over colorable questions of law and constitutional claims, 

Lorica’s contentions that the BIA relied on facts not in the record, and failed to 

consider relevant arguments, factors, and evidence, are not supported by the 

record, and do not amount to colorable claims that would invoke our jurisdiction. 

See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); 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 and internal quotation marks omitted)). Additionally, we do not 

reach Lorica’s contentions regarding the IJ’s discretionary analysis because our 

review is limited to the BIA’s decision. See Villavicencio v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 

658, 663 (9th Cir. 2018). 

Because the BIA’s discretionary determination is dispositive, we do not, and 
3 17-71010 

the BIA was not required to, address Lorica’s contentions regarding hardship for a 

waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h). See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th 

Cir. 2004).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lorica’s motion to reopen,

where the record does not support her contention that the BIA failed to consider

evidence. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 

(9th Cir. 2010) (agency need not write an exegesis on every contention);

Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not 

overcome the presumption that the BIA did review the record).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lorica’s motion to 

reconsider, where the record does not support her contention that the BIA applied 

the heightened discretionary standard in 8 C.F.R. § 212.7(d). See 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1003.2(b)(1).

To the extent Lorica challenges the validity of her criminal convictions, her 

contentions are not properly before the court. See Ramirez-Villalpando v. Holder, 

645 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011). 

PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.