Jose Alfonso Monroy-Olague v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ALFONSO MONROY-OLAGUE,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-73794
Agency No. A205-156-533
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 9, 2015**
Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Jose Alfonso Monroy-Olague, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of
removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
FILED
DEC 15 2015
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 2 --

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary decision, pursuant
to 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f) (final paragraph), that Monroy-Olague lacked good moral
character. See Lopez-Castellanos v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 848, 854 (9th Cir. 2006).
Monroy-Olague’s contention challenging the IJ’s consideration of the equities in
his case does not constitute a colorable constitutional claim or question of law that
would invoke our jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); see also Bazua-Cota
v. Gonzales, 466 F.3d 747, 748-49 (9th Cir. 2006) (while “[t]his court retains
jurisdiction over petitions for review that raise colorable constitutional claims or
questions of law,” a petitioner may not attack a discretionary decision simply by
phrasing his abuse of discretion challenge as a question of law).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
13-73794 2

-- 2 of 2 --