RAUL ROQUE V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-70408 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AUG 23 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS RAUL ROQUE, No. Petitioner, 14-70408 Agency No. A072-523-060 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 16, 2016** Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. Raul Roque, 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 his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due * 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). process violations. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that Roque failed to show the requisite hardship to a qualifying relative for cancellation of removal. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir. 2003). We do not consider Roque’s contentions regarding good moral character because his failure to establish hardship is dispositive. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1); Simeonov, 371 F.3d at 538. Roque’s contentions that the BIA violated due process by disregarding evidence of hardship and in not providing a reasoned explanation for its hardship determination are not supported by the record. See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2000) (petitioners must overcome presumption that agency reviewed all evidence); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (the BIA need not “write an exegesis on every contention” (citation and quotation marks omitted)). PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 2 14-70408
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.
