DANY HIGUEROS-SAGASTUME V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 17-70238 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 21 2019 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DANY HIGUEROS-SAGASTUME, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-70238 Agency No. A077-312-779 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 19, 2019** Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Dany Higueros-Sagastume, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We * 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). review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Higueros-Sagastume has not shown that the BIA’s issuance of a summary affirmance without opinion violated due process. See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 851 (9th Cir. 2003). We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of cancellation of removal as a matter of discretion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Monroy v. Lynch, 821 F.3d 1175, 1177-78 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that petitioner did not raise a reviewable issue because “he simply disagrees with the agency’s weighing of his positive equities and the negative factors”). Although the court would retain jurisdiction over colorable questions of law and constitutional claims, HiguerosSagastume’s contentions that the agency misconstrued or failed to consider evidence, or that it failed to provide sufficient reasoning, are unsupported and therefore not colorable. 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 internal quotation marks omitted)). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 17-70238
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.
