JOSE MONROY-OLAGUE V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 13-73794 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 15 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE ALFONSO MONROY-OLAGUE, Petitioner, No. 13-73794 Agency No. A205-156-533 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 9, 2015** Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. Jose Alfonso Monroy-Olague, 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 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 discretionary decision, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f) (final paragraph), that Monroy-Olague lacked good moral character. See Lopez-Castellanos v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 848, 854 (9th Cir. 2006). Monroy-Olague’s contention challenging the IJ’s consideration of the equities in his case does not constitute a colorable constitutional claim or question of law that would invoke our jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); see also Bazua-Cota v. Gonzales, 466 F.3d 747, 748-49 (9th Cir. 2006) (while “[t]his court retains jurisdiction over petitions for review that raise colorable constitutional claims or questions of law,” a petitioner may not attack a discretionary decision simply by phrasing his abuse of discretion challenge as a question of law). PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 2 13-73794