NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 10 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KOLYA RAZMIKOVICH No. 19-72885
BAGDASARYAN,
Agency No. A071-239-356
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 2, 2020**
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Kolya Razmikovich Bagdasaryan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for
adjustment of status and a waiver of inadmissibility. Our jurisdiction is governed
*
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).
by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the petition for review.
Bagdasaryan did not challenge the IJ’s determination that he is removable
for having been convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude in his appeal to
the BIA or in his opening brief. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th
Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented below); see also
Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not
specifically raised and argued in an opening brief are waived). Thus, we need not
reach Bagdasaryan’s contentions as to whether he is removable due to his
aggravated felony conviction.
We lack jurisdiction to review Bagdasaryan’s challenges to the IJ’s denial of
adjustment of status and a waiver of inadmissibility where the IJ denied relief as a
matter of discretion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); see also Ortega-Cervantes v.
Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1111, 1113 (9th Cir. 2007) (adjustment of status); Mejia v.
Gonzales, 499 F.3d 991, 999 (9th Cir. 2007) (212(h) waiver). Although the court
retains jurisdiction over colorable questions of law and constitutional claims,
Bagdasaryan’s contentions do not amount to colorable claims that would invoke
our jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424
F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005) (“To be colorable in this context, . . . the claim must
have some possible validity.”).
2 19-72885
On February 28, 2020, the court granted a stay of removal. The stay of
removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
3 19-72885