Hector Alvarado v. Loretta E. Lynch , 623 F. App'x 432 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 25 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HECTOR ALVARADO, No. 12-73116
Petitioner, Agency No. A074-424-184
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Hector Alvarado, 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 questions of law
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
or constitutional claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.
2005). We dismiss in part, and deny in part, the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary decision, pursuant
to 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f), that Alvarado lacked good moral character. See
Lopez-Castellanos v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 848, 854 (9th Cir. 2006). Although we
retain jurisdiction to review colorable questions of law or constitutional claims, see
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), Alvarado’s contention that the agency erred in its moral
character determination because his alleged misrepresentations were not listed as
one of the per se statutory exclusions found in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f) fails because the
agency’s determination was based in the statute’s “catch-all” provision. See 8
U.S.C. § 1101(f) (final paragraph). Alvarado’s remaining challenges to the
agency’s discretionary decision are not colorable constitutional or legal challenges
that would invoke our jurisdiction.
Petitioner’s remaining contention regarding his eligibility for a stay is moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
2 12-73116