CARLOS AGUILAR-MEJIA V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-72220 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 22 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CARLOS OVIDIO AGUILAR-MEJIA, Petitioner, No. 14-72220 Agency No. A073-951-904 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 15, 2016** Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Carlos Ovidio Aguilar-Mejia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 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 Aguilar-Mejia failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See De Mercado v. Mukasey, 566 F.3d 810, 814 (9th Cir. 2008). Aguilar-Mejia’s contentions that the agency committed legal error in not conducting a future-oriented hardship analysis and violated due process by failing to consider documentary evidence lack any support in the record and thus do not invoke jurisdiction. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (absent a colorable legal or constitutional claim, the court lacks jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination regarding hardship); MartinezRosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005) (“To be colorable in this context, ... the claim must have some possible validity.” (citation omitted)). PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 2 14-72220

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.