Sandra Vazquez-Delgado v. Jefferson Sessions

694 F. App'x 529
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJuly 19, 2017
Docket14-72790
StatusUnpublished

This text of 694 F. App'x 529 (Sandra Vazquez-Delgado 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.

Bluebook
Sandra Vazquez-Delgado v. Jefferson Sessions, 694 F. App'x 529 (9th Cir. 2017).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Sandra Vazquez-Delgado, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of ' Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of cancellation of removal as a matter of discretion, where Vazquez-Delgado does not raise a colorable legal or constitutional claim that would invoke our jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), (D); Planes v. Holder, 652 F.3d 991, 999 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissing petition challenging discretionary denial of cancellation of removal for failure to raise a colorable legal or constitutional challenge).

Because the BIA conducted an independent review of the IJ’s findings, we do not consider Vazquez-Delgado’s challenges to the IJ’s decision. See Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1061 (9th Cir. 2008) (‘Where the BIA conducts an independent review of the IJ’s findings, we review the BIA’s decision and not that of the IJ.” (citation omitted)).

We also do not consider contentions raised by Vazquez-Delgado for the first time in her reply brief. See Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993, 997 n.3 (9th Cir. 2007) (petitioner cannot raise new issues for the first time in a reply brief (citation omitted)); Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (issues not raised in opening brief are waived).

*530 Because the discretionary denial is dis-positive, we do not address Vazquez-Delgado’s contentions regarding the agency’s determination that she is statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

Related

Rizk v. Holder
629 F.3d 1083 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
Planes v. Holder
652 F.3d 991 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
Ghahremani v. Gonzales
498 F.3d 993 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)
Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey
538 F.3d 1057 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
694 F. App'x 529, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sandra-vazquez-delgado-v-jefferson-sessions-ca9-2017.