Georgina Martinez Quezada v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GEORGINA MARTINEZ QUEZADA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 15-70874
Agency No. A095-773-678
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Georgina Martinez Quezada, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from
an immigration judge’s decision denying relief. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
AUG 2 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-70874
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary denial of voluntary
departure. See Gil v. Holder, 651 F.3d 1000, 1003 (9th Cir. 2011), overruled on
other grounds by Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S.Ct. 1678 (2013). Martinez
Quezada’s contention that the agency did not consider both positive and negative
factors in evaluating whether to grant voluntary departure lacks support in the
record and is not sufficiently colorable to invoke our jurisdiction. See Martinez-
Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005) (absent a colorable legal or
constitutional claim, the court lacks jurisdiction to review discretionary
determinations (citation omitted)).
In light of the discretionary denial of voluntary departure, the agency did not
err in declining to address Martinez Quezada’s statutory eligibility for voluntary
departure. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --