Eligio Montiel-Perez v. William Barr ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUN 9 2020
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    ELIGIO MONTIEL-PEREZ,                           No.    18-72119
    Petitioner,                     Agency No. A200-280-866
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted June 2, 2020**
    Before:      LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
    Eligio Montiel-Perez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
    the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
    immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal.
    We dismiss the petition for review.
    Montiel-Perez’s contentions that the agency erred or violated due process
    *
    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).
    because it did not properly weigh or consider evidence, or did not adequately
    explain its decision, are not supported, colorable questions of law or constitutional
    claims. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 
    688 F.3d 642
    , 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (“traditional
    abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not
    present sufficiently colorable constitutional questions as to give this court
    jurisdiction”); Najmabadi v. Holder, 
    597 F.3d 983
    , 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (“What is
    required is merely that [the agency] consider the issues raised, and announce its
    decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard
    and thought and not merely reacted.” (internal quotation marks and citation
    omitted)). Thus, we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary
    determination that Montiel-Perez did not show exceptional and extremely unusual
    hardship to his U.S. citizen stepchild. See 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    (a)(2)(B)(i), (D);
    Vilchiz-Soto, 688 F.3d at 644.
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
    2                                    18-72119
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-72119

Filed Date: 6/9/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 6/9/2020