FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 21 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CRISTOBAL CABRERA-FLORES, No. 13-73269
Petitioner, Agency No. A079-619-687
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2015**
Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Cristobal Cabrera-Flores, 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 adjustment of status as a
matter of discretion. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We 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).
de novo questions of law and constitutional claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400
F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
Contrary to Cabrera-Flores’ contention, the agency applied the correct legal
standards in determining that he did not warrant a favorable exercise of discretion.
See Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 923-24 (9th Cir. 2007) (for
discretionary determinations, the agency should consider and weigh all relevant
factors); Matter of Edwards, 20 I. & N. Dec. 191, 196 (BIA 1990) (applications for
discretionary relief “must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, with rehabilitation
a factor to be considered in the exercise of discretion.”).
Also contrary to Cabrera-Flores’ contentions, the agency did not err by
considering his 2006 arrest report in its discretionary analysis, see Paredes-
Urrestarazu v. INS, 36 F.3d 801, 810 (9th Cir. 1994) (considering petitioner’s
arrest in the context of his request for discretionary relief), or in concluding that the
fact that two of his convictions were relatively recent was an adverse factor, see
Yepes-Prado v. INS, 10 F.3d 1363, 1372 (9th Cir. 1993), as amended (Nov. 12,
1993) (“rehabilitation can be established by the absence of subsequent criminal
conduct”).
2 13-73269
Cabrera-Flores’ contention that members of the agency imposed their
personal values in determining that Cabrera-Flores did not warrant a favorable
exercise of discretion is not supported by the record.
We lack jurisdiction to review Cabrera-Flores’ remaining challenges to the
agency’s discretionary denial of adjustment of status because they do not constitute
colorable constitutional claims or questions of law that would invoke our
jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Bazua-Cota v. Gonzales, 466 F.3d 747,
748-49 (9th Cir. 2006) (while “[t]his court retains jurisdiction over petitions for
review that raise colorable constitutional claims or questions of law,” a petitioner
may not attack a discretionary decision simply by phrasing his arguments as a legal
challenge).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 13-73269