JORGE RAMIREZ-RAMIREZ V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 17-70108 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUN 18 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JORGE RAMIREZ-RAMIREZ, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS Nos. 16-72352 17-70108 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-004-851 v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 12, 2018** Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. In these consolidated petitions for review, Jorge Ramirez-Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying * 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). his application for cancellation of removal (No. 16-72352) and the BIA’s order denying his motion to reopen (No. 17-70108). We dismiss the petitions for review. We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that Ramirez-Ramirez 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). Although the court would retain jurisdiction over colorable questions of law and constitutional claims, Ramirez-Ramirez’s contentions that the agency failed to consider hardship evidence regarding his son and failed to apply a cumulative analysis are not supported by the record, and do not amount to colorable claims that would invoke our jurisdiction. See id. (“To be colorable in this context, . . . the claim must have some possible validity.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of Ramirez-Ramirez’s motion to reopen because the new evidence he presented concerns the same hardship grounds previously relied upon to support his application for cancellation of removal. See Garcia v. Holder, 621 F.3d 906, 911 (9th Cir. 2010) (this court’s jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen is limited to cases in which petitioner presents new evidence that “is so distinct from that considered previously as to make the motion to reopen a request for new relief itself, rather than for reconsideration of a prior denial” (citation and internal quotation marks 2 17-70108 omitted)); see also Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (finding that evidence is cumulative when it pertains “to the inevitable passage of time between [petitioner’s] removal hearing and the BIA’s adjudication of her appeal”). PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 3 17-70108
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.
