OSCAR RODRIGUEZ-MORENO V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 15-72272 (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NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 2 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OSCAR JESUS RODRIGUEZ-MORENO, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-72272 Agency No. A201-184-100 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 26, 2017** Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Oscar Jesus Rodriguez-Moreno, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying cancellation of removal. We dismiss 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). Rodriguez-Moreno’s contentions that the agency failed to consider his arguments on appeal, violated due process by mischaracterizing or failing to consider evidence, and failed to conduct a future-oriented analysis are not supported by the record, and do not amount to colorable claims that would invoke jurisdiction over the agency’s hardship determmination. See Vilchiz-Soto 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 v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005) (“To be colorable in this context, . . . the claim must have some possible validity.” (citation omitted)); Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[A]n alien attempting to establish that the Board violated his right to due process by failing to consider relevant evidence must overcome the presumption that it did review the evidence.”). We lack jurisdiction to consider Rodriguez-Moreno’s unexhausted contention that he was denied a full and fair hearing before the IJ. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court lacks jurisdiction to consider legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before the BIA). PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 2 15-72272

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.