Nicanor Soto-Soto v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NICANOR SOTO-SOTO,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-72636
Agency No. A201-162-095
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Nicanor Soto-Soto, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of
removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
* 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).
FILED
FEB 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-72636
constitutional claims and questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785,
791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Contrary to Soto-Soto’s contention, the agency applied the correct legal
standard and did not fail to sufficiently explain its reasoning. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229b(b)(1)(D); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010).
We reject Soto-Soto’s unsupported contention that the IJ was not neutral.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
Soto-Soto failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his
qualifying relatives. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.
2005); see also Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 980-81 (9th Cir. 2009)
(the court lacks jurisdiction to review application of the exceptional and extremely
unusual hardship standard to the facts of a case, “be they disputed or otherwise”).
Soto-Soto’s contentions that the agency failed to consider his contentions and
relevant evidence of hardship are not supported by the record, and do not amount
to colorable claims that would invoke our jurisdiction. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder,
688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (absent a colorable legal or constitutional claim,
the court lacks jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination
regarding hardship); Martinez-Rosas, 424 F.3d at 930 (“To be colorable in this
context, . . . the claim must have some possible validity.” (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --