Misael Sanchez-Lopez v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MISAEL SANCHEZ-LOPEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-73766
Agency No. A095-766-763
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Misael Sanchez-Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
We review de novo mixed questions of law and fact, and factual determinations
FILED
DEC 18 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

underlying this inquiry are reviewed for clear error. United States v. Diaz-Juarez,
299 F.3d 1138, 1140 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
The agency did not clearly err in finding that the officer did not stop
Sanchez-Lopez solely because of his race and that legitimate, non-racial factors
motivated the officer’s stop. See United States v. Manzo-Jurado, 457 F.3d 928,
936 (9th Cir. 2006); Diaz-Juarez, 299 F.3d at 1142; cf. Gonzalez-Rivera v. INS, 22
F.3d 1441 (9th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, the agency did not err in admitting
Sanchez-Lopez’s Form I-213 where he did not demonstrate that the Form I-213
was obtained through an egregious violation of the Fourth Amendment. See
Orhorhaghe v. INS, 38 F.3d 488, 492-93 (9th Cir. 1994).
Sanchez-Lopez’s challenge to 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(i) is foreclosed by
Garfias-Rodriguez v. Holder, 702 F.3d 504, 523-28 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc).
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
Lopez-Sanchez failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his
qualifying relative. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir.
2009). Lopez-Sanchez’s contention that the agency applied the wrong legal
standard is not supported by the record and does not amount to a colorable
10-73766

-- 2 of 3 --

constitutional or legal challenge. See id. at 978-80 (this court lacks jurisdiction
over abuse of discretion challenges to discretionary determinations cloaked as
constitutional or legal questions).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
10-73766 3

-- 3 of 3 --