Jose Paredes Ramirez v. Jefferson Sessions
This text of Jose Paredes Ramirez v. Jefferson Sessions (Jose Paredes Ramirez v. Jefferson Sessions) 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.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE LUIS PAREDES RAMIREZ, No. 16-71139
Petitioner, Agency No. A206-412-049
v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Jose Luis Paredes Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s denial of cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for
review.
* 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). We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
Paredes Ramirez did not show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his
qualifying relatives. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012).
Paredes Ramirez’s unsupported contentions that the agency did not address the
effect his removal would have on his sons, allow him sufficient time to gather
evidence, or consider his pro se and detained status, are not sufficiently colorable
and thus do not invoke our jurisdiction. See id.; Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424
F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005) (“To be colorable in this context, . . . the claim must
have some possible validity.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted));
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.” (citation omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
2 16-71139
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Jose Paredes Ramirez v. Jefferson Sessions, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jose-paredes-ramirez-v-jefferson-sessions-ca9-2018.