NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 2 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JORGE BARROSO-VARGAS, No. 16-70841
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-474-071
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jorge Barroso-Vargas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying cancellation of removal and
denying his motion to remand. 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 denial of a motion to remand. Romero-Ruiz
v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in
part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of cancellation of removal
for failure to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying
relative, and Barroso-Vargas does not raise a colorable legal or constitutional claim
that would invoke our jurisdiction. 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 hardship determination).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Barroso-Vargas’ motion to
remand because the BIA considered the evidence that he submitted and acted
within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to
establish prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal. See Singh v. INS, 295
F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (The BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be
reversed only if it is “arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 16-70841