GEORGINA MARTINEZ QUEZADA V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 15-70874 (9th Cir. 2016)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 2 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GEORGINA MARTINEZ QUEZADA, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-70874 Agency No. A095-773-678 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 26, 2016** Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Georgina Martinez Quezada, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying relief. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. * 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). We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary denial of voluntary departure. See Gil v. Holder, 651 F.3d 1000, 1003 (9th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds by Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S.Ct. 1678 (2013). Martinez Quezada’s contention that the agency did not consider both positive and negative factors in evaluating whether to grant voluntary departure lacks support in the record and is not sufficiently colorable to invoke our jurisdiction. See MartinezRosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005) (absent a colorable legal or constitutional claim, the court lacks jurisdiction to review discretionary determinations (citation omitted)). In light of the discretionary denial of voluntary departure, the agency did not err in declining to address Martinez Quezada’s statutory eligibility for voluntary departure. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004). PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 2 15-70874

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.