HUMBERTO JIMENEZ V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 15-70918 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 16 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HUMBERTO JIMENEZ, AKA Humberto Vergara Jimenez, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-70918 Agency No. A099-367-363 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 8, 2017** Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Humberto Jimenez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal * 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). from an 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 discretionary determination that Jimenez failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his qualifying relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005). Although the court would retain jurisdiction over colorable questions of law and constitutional claims, Jimenez’s contentions that the agency failed to consider relevant evidence of hardship or apply the correct legal standard are not supported by the record and do not amount to colorable claims. See id. (“To be colorable in this context, . . . the claim must have some possible validity.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). We do not reach Jimenez’s contentions concerning denial as a matter of discretion, because the BIA did not rely on that ground. Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2004) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.”) PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 2 15-70918

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.