OMAR SANCHEZ-RODRIGUEZ V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 12-72530 (9th Cir. 2013)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 19 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OMAR SANCHEZ-RODRIGUEZ, a.k.a. Octavio Soto-Ramirez, No. 12-72530 Agency No. A095-791-571 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 17, 2013** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. Omar Sanchez-Rodriguez, 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 his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 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 determination that SanchezRodriguez failed to demonstrate the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship necessary for cancellation of removal. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order) ( [A]bsent a colorable legal or constitutional claim, we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA s discretionary determination that an alien failed to prove that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship . . . . ). Sanchez-Rodriguez s contentions that the agency improperly applied the legal standard for exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the facts of his case and improperly weighed his evidence of hardship are not colorable questions of law that would invoke our jurisdiction. See De Mercado v. Mukasey, 566 F.3d 810, 816 (9th Cir. 2009); Bazua-Cota v. Gonzales, 466 F.3d 747, 749 (9th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 2 12-72530

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.