Reynoso v. Holder

Ninth Circuit

Reynoso v. Holder

329 F. App'x 786

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 30, 2009

DocketNo. 07-71601

StatusPublished

This text of 329 F. App'x 786 (Reynoso v. Holder) 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

Reynoso v. Holder, 329 F. App'x 786 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Jesus Agredano Reynoso, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal for legal permanent residents. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)©. Rey-noso’s contention that the IJ improperly weighed the evidence in determining the equities of his case does not amount to a colorable constitutional claim. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005) (“[Traditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not constitute color-able constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

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

**

Jesus Agredano Reynoso, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal for legal permanent residents. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)©. Rey-noso’s contention that the IJ improperly weighed the evidence in determining the equities of his case does not amount to a colorable constitutional claim. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005) (“[Traditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not constitute color-able constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

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)

329 F. App'x 786, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reynoso-v-holder-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack