ALVIN NAVARRO V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 15-70667 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 2 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALVIN M. NAVARRO, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS Nos. 15-70667 15-71796 Petitioner, Agency No. A206-408-295 v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 26, 2017** Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. In these consolidated petitions for review, Alvin M. Navarro, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal, and denying his motion to * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). In No. 15-70667, we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review, and in No. 15-71796, we deny the petition for review. Navarro’s contention that the BIA did not use the proper standard in making its hardship determination is not supported, where the record shows the BIA conducted a future-oriented analysis. See Figueroa v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 487, 49798 (9th Cir. 2008) (agency must conduct a “future-oriented analysis” in determining whether “removal would result in an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to qualifying relatives) (emphasis in original). We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that Navarro 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). Navarro has waived any challenge to the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (issues not raised in an opening brief are waived). IN No. 15-70667; PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. IN No. 15-71796; PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 15-70667 15-71796
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.
