EDGAR MARTINEZ-BARRIENTOS V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 12-73570 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED MAY 28 2014 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EDGAR RAUL MARTINEZBARRIENTOS, a.k.a. Edgar Raul Martinez, No. 12-73570 Agency No. A040-197-600 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 13, 2014** Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Edgar Raul Martinez-Barrientos, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge s decision denying his applications for * 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). cancellation of removal and waivers of inadmissibility under section 212(h) and former section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. We dismiss the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) to review the BIA s determination that Martinez-Barrientos did not merit relief from removal as a matter of discretion. See Mendoza v. Holder, 623 F.3d 1299, 1302 (9th Cir. 2010) (section 212(h) waiver); Bermudez v. Holder, 586 F.3d 1167, 1169 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (cancellation of removal); Palma-Rojas v. INS, 244 F.3d 1191, 1192 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (former section 212(c) waiver). Martinez-Barrientos raises no colorable constitutional claim or question of law that would invoke our jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). See Bermudez, 586 F.3d at 1169 ( [A]ny challenge of [the BIA s] discretionary determination must present a colorable claim in order for this court to exercise jurisdiction. (citation omitted)); Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir. 2009) ( To be colorable in this context, . . . the claim must have some possible validity. ). PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 2 12-73570

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.