Alvin Navarro v. Jefferson Sessions , 698 F. App'x 419 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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
ALVIN M. NAVARRO, Nos. 15-70667
15-71796
Petitioner,
Agency No. A206-408-295
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney MEMORANDUM*
General,
Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Alvin M. Navarro, a native and
citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) orders dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision
denying his application for cancellation of removal, and denying his motion to
*
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).
reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). In
No. 15-70667, we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review, and in
No. 15-71796, we deny the petition for review.
Navarro’s contention that the BIA did not use the proper standard in making
its hardship determination is not supported, where the record shows the BIA
conducted a future-oriented analysis. See Figueroa v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 487, 497-
98 (9th Cir. 2008) (agency must conduct a “future-oriented analysis” in
determining whether “removal would result in an exceptional and extremely
unusual hardship” to qualifying relatives) (emphasis in original).
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
Navarro failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying
relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005).
Navarro has waived any challenge to the BIA’s denial of his motion to
reopen. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (issues not
raised in an opening brief are waived).
IN No. 15-70667; PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part;
DISMISSED in part.
IN No. 15-71796; PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 15-70667
15-71796