Emmanuel Andres Serrano v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EMMANUEL ANDRES SERRANO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 05-75410
Agency No. A040-491-882
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Emmanuel Andres Serrano, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily
affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Vargas-Hernandez v.
FILED
SEP 23 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

05-75410 2
Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 921 (9th Cir. 2007), and we dismiss in part and deny in
part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary denial of relief
under former section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1182(c) (repealed 1996). See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii); Vargas-Hernandez,
497 F.3d at 923 (“Discretionary decisions, including whether or not to grant
§ 212(c) relief, are not reviewable.”). Serrano does not raise a colorable due
process challenge to the discretionary determination. See Martinez-Rosas v.
Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005). Because the discretionary
determination is dispositive, we do not reach Serrano’s remaining contentions
regarding his eligibility for section 212(c) relief.
The BIA did not act ultra vires or violate due process when it remanded
Serrano’s case to the IJ for entry of an order of removal. See Lolong v. Gonzales,
484 F.3d 1173, 1178 (9th Cir. 2007) (overruling Molina-Camacho v. Ashcroft, 393
F.3d 937 (9th Cir. 2004) and explaining that the BIA may reinstate an IJ’s
underlying removal order).
The government’s motion to hold proceedings in abeyance is denied as
moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --