Jose Salcido-Rios v. Loretta E. Lynch , 604 F. App'x 605 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 20 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE GUADALUPE SALCIDO-RIOS, No. 13-71265
Petitioner, Agency No. A036-650-156
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2015**
Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jose Guadalupe Salcido-Rios, 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 applications for adjustment of
status and a waiver of inadmissibility under former section 212(c) of the
*
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).
Immigration and Nationality Act, and denying his motion to remand. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law.
Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 921 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny in
part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
This court generally lacks jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary
denial of a waiver under former section 212(c). See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).
Although we retain jurisdiction over questions of law, see 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(D), Salcido-Rios’ contention that the agency erred as a matter of law
by failing to consider all the relevant factors in exercising its discretion is
unavailing. Salcido-Rios’ remaining challenges to the agency’s discretionary
denial of a waiver under section 212(c) are not colorable constitutional or legal
challenges that would invoke our jurisdiction. Bermudez v. Holder, 586 F.3d 1167,
1169 (9th Cir. 2009) (“ ‘[A]ny challenge of [the agency’s] discretionary
determination must present a colorable claim’ in order for this court to exercise
jurisdiction.” (citation omitted)); Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 978
(9th Cir. 2009) (“To be colorable in this context, . . . the claim must have some
possible validity.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 13-71265