FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ-BOYZO V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, III, No. 17-70525 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 29 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ-BOYZO, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-70525 Agency No. A095-754-692 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 22, 2018** Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges. Francisco Hernandez-Boyzo, 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 denial of cancellation of removal and administrative closure. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and * 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). dismiss in part the petition for review. Hernandez-Boyzo establishes no error in the agency’s denial of administrative closure under the factors applicable at the time of the hearing. See Gonzalez-Caraveo v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 885, 891 (9th Cir. 2018). We do not reach Hernandez-Boyzo’s contentions regarding an alleged lawful admission to the United States in 1993 because the BIA determined that administrative closure was not warranted regardless of whether the alleged admission was procedurally regular. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach). We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that Hernandez-Boyzo failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his qualifying relatives. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005). Hernandez-Boyzo’s contentions regarding hardship are not colorable and thus do not invoke our 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); Martinez-Rosas, 424 F.3d at 930 (“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 17-70525
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.
