Court Opinion

ID: 8603331
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 00:50:08.753491+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:13.349051
License: Public Domain

MEMORANDUM **
Juan Margarito Perez-Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s underlying order dismissing Perez-Lopez’s appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying cancellation of removal because the instant petition for review is not timely as to that order. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir.1996).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to reopen, because the BIA considered the evidence Perez-Lopez submitted and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to warrant reopening. See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002) (The BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is “arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law.”).
Perez-Lopez’s contention that the agency failed to consider all hardship factors does not state a colorable due process claim. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005) (“traditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction.”); see also Sanchez-Cruz v. INS, 255 F.3d 775, 779 (9th Cir.2001) (holding that the “misapplication of case law” may not be reviewed).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the *530courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.