Case Name: Merly Zucelly GARCIA-PEREZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-10-04
Citations: 669 F. App'x 454
Docket Number: No. 15-73515
Parties: Merly Zucelly GARCIA-PEREZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 669
Pages: 454–454

Head Matter:
Merly Zucelly GARCIA-PEREZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 15-73515
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted September 27, 2016
Filed October 04, 2016
Merly Zucelly Garcia-Perez, Pro Se
Jane Tracey Schaffner, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Offiee of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)."

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Merly Zucelly Garcia-Perez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's order of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's decision to deny as a matter of diseretion Garcia-Perez's request for a waiver of inadmissibility under Immigration and Nationality Act § 212(h), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h). See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B); Mejia v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 991, 999 (9th Cir. 2007). Garcia-Perez's contention that the agency failed to consider certain positive equities is not supported by the record and does not amount to a colorable legal or constitutional claim over which we have jurisdiction. See Mejia, 499 F.3d at 999.
The agency properly determined that Garcia-Perez was ineligible for cancellation of removal because she had previously received suspension of deportation. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(c)(6).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.