RICARDO LOPEZ-AGUILAR V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, III, No. 16-72472 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 23 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RICARDO LOPEZ-AGUILAR, AKA John Doe, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-72472 Agency No. A206-784-349 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 15, 2018** Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Ricardo Lopez-Aguilar, 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. * 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). We dismiss the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that Lopez-Aguilar lacks good moral character under the catch-all provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f). See Moran v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1089, 1091 (9th Cir. 2005) (the court lacks jurisdiction to review discretionary determinations of moral character), overruled on other grounds by Sanchez v. Holder, 560 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2009). Lopez-Aguilar’s contentions do not amount to a colorable constitutional claim or question of law that would invoke our jurisdiction. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005) (“To be colorable in this context, . . . the claim must have some possible validity.” (citation and international quotation marks omitted)); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency need not write an exegesis on every contention). We lack jurisdiction to consider Lopez-Aguilar’s unexhausted contention that the agency improperly relied on the Form I-213 in its good moral character determination. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the agency). PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 2 16-72472
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.
