Case Name: Jose Alfonso MONROY-OLAGUE, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-12-15
Citations: 624 F. App'x 571
Docket Number: No. 13-73794
Parties: Jose Alfonso MONROY-OLAGUE, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 624
Pages: 571–572

Head Matter:
Jose Alfonso MONROY-OLAGUE, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-73794.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 9, 2015.
Filed Dec. 15, 2015.
Saad Ahmad, Fremont, CA, for Petitioner.
Deitz P. Lefort, Trial, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, 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
Jose Alfonso Monroy-Olague, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's discretionary decision, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f) (final paragraph), that Monroy-Olague lacked good moral character. See Lopez-Castellanos v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 848, 854 (9th Cir.2006). Monroy-Olague's contention challenging the IJ's consideration of the equities in his case does not constitute a colorable constitutional claim or question of law that would invoke our jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); see also Bazua-Cota v. Gonzales, 466 F.3d 747, 748-49 (9th Cir.2006) (while "[t]his court retains jurisdiction over petitions for review that raise colorable constitutional claims or questions of law," a petitioner may not attack a discretionary decision simply by phrasing his abuse of discretion challenge as a question of law).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.