JESUS NAVARRO V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 12-71291 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAR 14 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS JESUS JASSO NAVARRO, Petitioner, No. 12-71291 Agency No. A077-970-851 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 10, 2014** Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Jesus Jasso Navarro, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge s denial of cancellation of removal as a matter of discretion. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 12-71291 Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. In his opening brief, Navarro fails to address, and therefore has waived any challenge to, the BIA s removability determination. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding issues that are not specifically raised and argued in a party s opening brief are waived). We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ s denial of cancellation of removal in the exercise of discretion. See Bermudez v. Holder, 586 F.3d 1167, 1169 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). Moreover, Jasso Navarro s contention that he feels the United States is the best place for him is not a sufficiently colorable constitutional claim or question of law to trigger our jurisdiction. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir. 2009) ( To be colorable in this context, the violation need not be substantial, but the claim must have some possible validity. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 12-71291

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.