NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 16 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HUMBERTO JIMENEZ, AKA Humberto No. 15-70918
Vergara Jimenez,
Agency No. A099-367-363
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Humberto Jimenez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
*
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).
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for
cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
Jimenez failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his
qualifying relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.
2005). Although the court would retain jurisdiction over colorable questions of
law and constitutional claims, Jimenez’s contentions that the agency failed to
consider relevant evidence of hardship or apply the correct legal standard are not
supported by the record and do not amount to colorable claims. See id. (“To be
colorable in this context, . . . the claim must have some possible validity.” (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted)).
We do not reach Jimenez’s contentions concerning denial as a matter of
discretion, because the BIA did not rely on that ground. Andia v. Ashcroft, 359
F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2004) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we
consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.”)
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
2 15-70918