NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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
ERICSCANDE GARCIA-LOPEZ, No. 15-72166
Petitioner, Agency No. A206-081-755
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.
Ericscande Garcia-Lopez, 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.
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
*
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).
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.
Garcia-Lopez’s contention that the agency violated due process by failing to
consider relevant evidence of hardship is not supported by the record. See
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (the agency must consider
the issues raised and express its decision “in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing
court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted” (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted)); Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922
(9th Cir. 2006) (holding that the immigration judge’s decision need not discuss
every piece of evidence, and accepting the immigration judge’s general statement
that he considered all of the evidence before rendering a decision.)
To the extent Garcia-Lopez requests review of the agency’s discretionary
determination that he failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to
his qualifying relatives, we lack jurisdiction to consider this contention. 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, and traditional abuse of discretion
challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not restore jurisdiction).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part, DISMISSED in part.
2 15-72166