VICTOR MIRANDA-HERNANDEZ V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-70464 (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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 15 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VICTOR MIRANDA-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, No. 14-70464 Agency No. A089-245-533 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. Victor Miranda-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming an immigration judge’s denial of 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 determination that Miranda-Hernandez failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir. 2003). Miranda-Hernandez’s contention that the hardship standard set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D) is unconstitutionally vague 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); Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005) (“traditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction”). We do not consider Miranda-Hernandez’s contentions regarding physical presence because his failure to establish hardship is dispositive. See 8 U.S.C. §1229b(b)(1)(D); Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (“As a general rule courts . . . are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)). PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 2 14-70464
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.
