Case Name: Eloisa Marisol RESENDIZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-05-28
Citations: 576 F. App'x 662
Docket Number: No. 12-71130
Parties: Eloisa Marisol RESENDIZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 576
Pages: 662–662

Head Matter:
Eloisa Marisol RESENDIZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-71130.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 13, 2014.
Filed May 28, 2014.
Frank P. Sprouls, Esquire, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Sheri Robyn Glaser, Trial, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, 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
Eloísa Marisol Resendiz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo constitutional claims and questions of law. Pechenkov v. Holder, 705 F.3d 444, 449 (9th Cir.2012). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
Because Resendiz is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)© based on her conviction for an offense relating to a controlled substance, and under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) based on her conviction for an aggravated felony, our jurisdiction is limited to colorable constitutional claims or questions of law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C)-(D). Resendiz's contention that the agency abused its discretion in determining that she had been convicted of a particularly serious crime does not raise a constitutional claim or colorable question of law that would invoke our jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). See Pechenkov, 705 F.3d at 447-49 (holding that § 1252(a)(2)(C) barred review of the agency's finding that petitioner's aggravated felony conviction was a particularly serious crime where petitioner sought only "a reweighing of the factors involved in that discretionary determination").
We are not persuaded that the BIA erred in noting the drug involved and the location of the transaction in its determination that Resendiz did not establish that her drug conviction is not a particularly serious crime.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.