VALLES v. BARR (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Fernando Sandoval Valles, 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 (“IJ”) denial of cancellation of removal and administrative closure. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that Sandoval Valles had not shown exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his qualifying relatives for cancellation of removal, because he has not presented a colorable constitutional or legal claim to invoke our jurisdiction over the agency’s discretionary determination. 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 determination regarding hardship). Sandoval Valles’s contentions that the IJ erred in his hardship analysis are not supported.

Sandoval Valles’s contentions that the BIA engaged in impermissible fact finding and did not review the record are not supported. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (alien must overcome presumption that BIA did review all evidence when the BIA plainly stated it reviewed the record).

Sandoval Valles establishes no error in the agency’s denial of administrative closure on the record before it, under the factors applicable at the time of the hearing. See Gonzalez-Caraveo v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 885, 891 (9th Cir. 2018).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.