Dany Higueros-Sagastume v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANY HIGUEROS-SAGASTUME,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 17-70238
Agency No. A077-312-779
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 19, 2019**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Dany Higueros-Sagastume, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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
* 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 21 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-70238
review de novo 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.
Higueros-Sagastume has not shown that the BIA’s issuance of a summary
affirmance without opinion violated due process. See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft,
350 F.3d 845, 851 (9th Cir. 2003).
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of cancellation of removal
as a matter of discretion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Monroy v. Lynch, 821
F.3d 1175, 1177-78 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that petitioner did not raise a
reviewable issue because “he simply disagrees with the agency’s weighing of his
positive equities and the negative factors”). Although the court would retain
jurisdiction over colorable questions of law and constitutional claims, Higueros-
Sagastume’s contentions that the agency misconstrued or failed to consider
evidence, or that it failed to provide sufficient reasoning, are unsupported and
therefore not colorable. See 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)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --