Case Name: Eleazar NOVOA-DIAZ, AKA Eleazar Diaz Novoa, AKA Eleazor Novoa, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-03
Citations: 700 F. App'x 749
Docket Number: No. 15-71659
Parties: Eleazar NOVOA-DIAZ, AKA Eleazar Diaz Novoa, AKA Eleazor Novoa, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 700
Pages: 749–750

Head Matter:
Eleazar NOVOA-DIAZ, AKA Eleazar Diaz Novoa, AKA Eleazor Novoa, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 15-71659
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted October 23, 2017
Filed November 3, 2017
Miguel Angel Olano, Miguel Olano, Attorney at Law, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner
John Beadle Holt, Esquire, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
Before: LEAVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, 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
Eleazar Novoa-Diaz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's denial of cancellation of removal for failure to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative, and Novoa-Diaz does not raise a colorable legal or constitutional claim that would 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); Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2000) (petitioners must overcome presumption that agency reviewed all evidence); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency adequately considered evi dence and sufficiently announced its decision).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.