Jose Luis Serrano Landeta v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE LUIS SERRANO LANDETA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-1156
Agency No.
A046-535-631
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 18, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: TASHIMA and FORREST, Circuit Judges, and CARDONE,***
District Judge.
Jose Luis Serrano Landeta, a native and citizen of Ecuador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for
adjustment of status. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
FILED
JUL 20 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not
precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
*** The Honorable Kathleen Cardone, United States District Judge for
the Western District of Texas, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 2 --

dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of adjustment of status.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B); Patel v. Garland, 142 S. Ct. 1614, 1622–23
(2022) (where the agency denies a form of relief listed in 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), federal courts have jurisdiction to review constitutional
claims and questions of law, but not factual findings and discretionary
decisions). The petition does not raise a colorable legal or constitutional claim
over which we retain jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); see also
Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir. 2001) (abuse of discretion
argument cloaked as due process claim is not colorable).
We do not address Serrano Landeta’s contentions that his conviction does
not constitute an aggravated felony or crime involving moral turpitude because
the BIA did not deny relief on these grounds. See Santiago-Rodriguez v.
Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the
BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.” (quoting Andia
v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2004) (per curiam)).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
2 22-1156

-- 2 of 2 --