Cynthia Suratos Lorica v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CYNTHIA SURATOS LORICA,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 16-71404
16-73864
17-71010
Agency No. A095-271-411
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 12, 2019**
Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Cynthia Suratos Lorica, a native
and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”)
decision denying her applications for adjustment of status and a waiver of
* 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
MAR 19 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-71010
inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h) (No. 16-71404), and denying her motions
to reopen (No. 16-73864) and reconsider (No. 17-71010). Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a
motion to reopen or reconsider, and 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 petitions for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of Lorica’s applications
for adjustment of status and a waiver of inadmissibility where the agency denied
relief as a matter of discretion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). While the court
would retain jurisdiction over colorable questions of law and constitutional claims,
Lorica’s contentions that the BIA relied on facts not in the record, and failed to
consider relevant arguments, factors, and evidence, are not supported by the
record, and do not amount to colorable claims that would invoke our jurisdiction.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); 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)). Additionally, we do not
reach Lorica’s contentions regarding the IJ’s discretionary analysis because our
review is limited to the BIA’s decision. See Villavicencio v. Sessions, 904 F.3d
658, 663 (9th Cir. 2018).
Because the BIA’s discretionary determination is dispositive, we do not, and

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-71010
the BIA was not required to, address Lorica’s contentions regarding hardship for a
waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h). See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th
Cir. 2004).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lorica’s motion to reopen,
where the record does not support her contention that the BIA failed to consider
evidence. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990
(9th Cir. 2010) (agency need not write an exegesis on every contention);
Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not
overcome the presumption that the BIA did review the record).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lorica’s motion to
reconsider, where the record does not support her contention that the BIA applied
the heightened discretionary standard in 8 C.F.R. § 212.7(d). See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(b)(1).
To the extent Lorica challenges the validity of her criminal convictions, her
contentions are not properly before the court. See Ramirez-Villalpando v. Holder,
645 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --