Case Name: Georgina Martinez QUEZADA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-02
Citations: 656 F. App'x 351
Docket Number: No. 15-70874
Parties: Georgina Martinez QUEZADA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 656
Pages: 351–351

Head Matter:
Georgina Martinez QUEZADA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 15-70874
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 26, 2016
FILED August 2, 2016
Georgina Martinez Quezada, Pro Se
Jamie M. Dowd, Esquire, Attorney, Sa-batino F. Leo, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, 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).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Georgina Martinez Quezada, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying relief. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's discretionary denial of voluntary departure. See Gil v. Holder, 651 F.3d 1000, 1003 (9th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds by Moncrieffe v. Holder, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1678, 185 L.Ed.2d 727 (2013). Martinez Quezada's contention that the agency did not consider both positive and negative factors in evaluating whether to grant voluntary departure lacks support in the record and is not sufficiently color-able to invoke our jurisdiction. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005) (absent a colorable legal or constitutional claim, the court lacks jurisdiction to review discretionary determinations (citation omitted)).
In light of the discretionary denial of voluntary departure, the agency did not err in declining to address Martinez Quezada's statutory eligibility' for voluntary departure. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004).
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.