German Ricardo Ortiz-Ramirez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
GERMAN RICARDO ORTIZ-RAMIREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72630
Agency No. A200-822-501
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 15, 2013**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
German Ricardo Ortiz-Ramirez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying Ortiz-Ramirez’s applications for adjustment
of status and voluntary departure. We dismiss the petition for review.
FILED
JAN 16 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-72630 2
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary denial of
adjustment of status or voluntary departure. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Gil v.
Holder, 651 F.3d 1000, 1006 (9th Cir. 2011) (voluntary departure); Bazua-Cota v.
Gonzales, 466 F.3d 747, 748 (9th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (adjustment of status).
Ortiz-Ramirez’s contentions that the agency improperly relied on a probation
report in its discretionary analysis and applied an incorrect discretionary standard
to his case do not present colorable constitutional claims or questions of law
sufficient to restore our jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) and are not
supported by the record. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 978
(9th Cir. 2009) (“To be colorable in this context , . . . the claim [or question] must
have some possible validity.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
We also lack jurisdiction to review Ortiz-Ramirez’s contention that the
agency misapplied the law by citing two uncharged arrests as adverse discretionary
factors, because Ortiz-Ramirez failed to raise this issue in his appellate brief to the
BIA. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --