JUAN REYNEL-SALINAS V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 15-73141 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 14 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUAN REYNEL-SALINAS, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-73141 Agency No. A097-762-600 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 9, 2017** Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Juan Reynel-Salinas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s 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). We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that Reynel-Salinas failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his qualifying relatives. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005). Reynel-Salinas’ contentions that the agency failed to provide a reasoned explanation, consider the totality of the circumstances, or consider relevant arguments and evidence are not supported by the record and thus do not invoke our jurisdiction. 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, 424 F.3d at 930 (“To be colorable in this context, . . . the claim must have some possible validity.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 2 15-73141

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.