Cristobal Campos-Avalos v. Loretta E. Lynch

Ninth Circuit

Cristobal Campos-Avalos v. Loretta E. Lynch

617 F. App'x 819

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 25, 2015

Docket13-74279

StatusUnpublished

This text of 617 F. App'x 819 (Cristobal Campos-Avalos v. Loretta E. Lynch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cristobal Campos-Avalos v. Loretta E. Lynch, 617 F. App'x 819 (9th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Cristobal Campos-Avalos, 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 denial of his applications for a waiver of inadmissibility and for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), 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), and review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1193 (9th Cir.2003); We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary decision to deny a waiver under former INA § 212(c). Vargas-Hernandez, 497 F.3d at 923 (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)). Although this Court retains jurisdiction to review color-able questions of law or constitutional claims, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), Campos-Avalos’s contention that the agency failed to consider all the relevant factors in exercising its discretion is not supported by the record. Mendez-Castro v. Muka-sey, 552 F.3d 975, 979-80 (9th Cir.2009). Campos-Avalos’s remaining challenges to *820 the agency’s discretionary decision are not colorable constitutional or legal challenges that invoke our jurisdiction. See id.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief where Campos-Avalos failed to establish it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if he returned to Mexico. See Zhang v. Ashcroft, 388 F.8d 713, 721-22 (9th Cir.2004).

Campos-Avalos’s contention that the BIA failed to consider- evidence submitted with his motion to remand is not supported by the record.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Cristobal Campos-Avalos, 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 denial of his applications for a waiver of inadmissibility and for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), 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), and review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1193 (9th Cir.2003); We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary decision to deny a waiver under former INA § 212(c). Vargas-Hernandez, 497 F.3d at 923 (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)). Although this Court retains jurisdiction to review color-able questions of law or constitutional claims, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), Campos-Avalos’s contention that the agency failed to consider all the relevant factors in exercising its discretion is not supported by the record. Mendez-Castro v. Muka-sey, 552 F.3d 975, 979-80 (9th Cir.2009). Campos-Avalos’s remaining challenges to *820 the agency’s discretionary decision are not colorable constitutional or legal challenges that invoke our jurisdiction. See id.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief where Campos-Avalos failed to establish it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if he returned to Mexico. See Zhang v. Ashcroft, 388 F.8d 713, 721-22 (9th Cir.2004).

Campos-Avalos’s contention that the BIA failed to consider- evidence submitted with his motion to remand is not supported by the record.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

617 F. App'x 819, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cristobal-campos-avalos-v-loretta-e-lynch-ca9-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack