JULIAN TORRES-MENDOZA V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-71784 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 24 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JULIAN ALONSO TORRESMENDOZA, AKA Alonso TorresMendoza, AKA Alonso Julian TorresMendoza, AKA Jul Alonso TorresMendoza, No. 14-71784 Agency No. A087-526-865 MEMORANDUM* Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 24, 2016** Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Julian Alonso Torres-Mendoza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an * 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). 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 determination that TorresMendoza failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005). Torres-Mendoza’s contention that he was denied due process by the IJ is not supported by the record and thus does not invoke our jurisdiction. See VilchizSoto 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); Martinez-Rosas, 424 F.3d at 930 (“To be colorable in this context, . . . the claim must have some possible validity.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 2 14-71784

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.