ALFREDO ESPINDOLA-RAMIREZ, AKA Ruben Espindola-Ramirez v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALFREDO ESPINDOLA-RAMIREZ,
AKA Ruben Espindola-Ramirez,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-72376
Agency No. A200-149-976
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Alfredo Espindola-Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s order of removal. We review de novo constitutional claims.
FILED
MAR 02 2016
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 --

Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005). We dismiss the
petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
Espindola-Ramirez failed to show the requisite exceptional and extremely unusual
hardship to his qualifying relatives. See id. at 930.
Espindola-Ramirez’s contentions that the agency violated due process by
failing to consider family separation and danger in Mexico in its hardship analysis,
selectively reviewing the record, disregarding evidence, and exhibiting bias are
unsupported by the record. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.
2010) (The agency “does not have to write an exegesis on every contention. What
is required is merely that it consider the issues raised, and announce its decision in
terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and
thought and not merely reacted.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Accordingly, Espindola-Ramirez’s petition fails to state a colorable due process
claim that would invoke our jurisdiction. Martinez-Rosas, 424 F.3d at 930 (“[t]o
be colorable . . . the claim must have some possible validity”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
14-72376 2

-- 2 of 2 --