IN KYUNG PAK V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 15-73074 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 20 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN KYUNG PAK, No. Petitioner, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-73074 Agency No. A038-662-918 v. MEMORANDUM * JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 11, 2017** Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. In Kyung Pak, a native and citizen of South Korea, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal for legal permanent residents. 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). We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of cancellation of removal as a matter of discretion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Monroy v. Lynch, 821 F.3d 1175, 1177-78 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that petitioner did not raise a reviewable issue because “he simply disagrees with the agency’s weighing of his positive equities and the negative factors”). Although the court would retain jurisdiction over colorable questions of law and constitutional claims, Pak’s contentions that the agency failed to consider or properly analyze relevant evidence, or apply the correct legal standard are not supported by the record and do not amount to colorable claims. See MartinezRosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005). (“To be colorable in this context, . . . the claim must have some possible validity.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 2 15-73074

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.