NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 13 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
REYES ALVAREZ LOPEZ, No. 14-72014
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-815-884
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Reyes Alvarez Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
remand, and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order
denying cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
*
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).
We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to remand,
Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008), and we review de
novo due process claims, Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.
2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying
Alvarez Lopez’s motion to remand, where he provided no new facts or evidence of
his eligibility for the relief he sought. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (a motion to
reopen shall state new facts and be supported by evidence); Romero-Ruiz, 538 F.3d
at 1063 (“The formal requirements of a motion to remand and a motion to reopen
are the same.”); 8 C.F.R. § 212.7(e)(3) (2013) (requiring an approved immigrant
visa in order to be granted a provisional unlawful presence waiver). In light of this
determination, we deny Alvarez Lopez’s related request for judicial notice.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
Alvarez Lopez did not show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his
qualifying relatives. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012)
(order). Alvarez Lopez’s unsupported contentions that the IJ did not apply the
proper standard by not considering all of his wife’s possible hardships and that the
agency improperly relied too heavily on his alternative means of adjusting his
status are not sufficiently colorable and thus do not invoke our jurisdiction. See id.;
Martinez-Rosas, 424 F.3d at 930 (“To be colorable in this context, . . . the claim
2 14-72014
must have some possible validity.” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)).
We also lack jurisdiction to review Alvarez Lopez’s unexhausted
contentions regarding administrative closure. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071,
1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in
an alien’s administrative proceedings before the BIA.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 14-72014
Reyes Alvarez Lopez v. Jefferson Sessions
Combined Opinion