United States v. 2020-06-09 | 18-72119 | ELIGIO MONTIEL-PEREZ V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ELIGIO MONTIEL-PEREZ,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 18-72119

Agency No. A200-280-866

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 2, 2020
**

Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Eligio Montiel-Perez, 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 decision denying his application for cancellation of removal.
We dismiss the petition for review.
Montiel-Perez’s contentions that the agency erred or violated due process

*
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

JUN 9 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 18-72119
because it did not properly weigh or consider evidence, or did not adequately
explain its decision, are not supported, colorable questions of law or constitutional
claims. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (“traditional
abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not
present sufficiently colorable constitutional questions as to give this court
jurisdiction”); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (“What is
required is merely that [the agency] consider the issues raised, and announce its
decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard
and thought and not merely reacted.” (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted)). Thus, we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary
determination that Montiel-Perez did not show exceptional and extremely unusual
hardship to his U.S. citizen stepchild. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (D);
Vilchiz-Soto, 688 F.3d at 644.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.