Inderjit Kaur v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
INDERJIT KAUR,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-73434
Agency No. A070-544-016
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Inderjit Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s
(“IJ”) final order of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary decision to deny
* 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
MAR 16 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-73434
Kaur’s application for a waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(i). See 8
U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). Kaur fails to raise a colorable constitutional claim or
question of law to invoke our jurisdiction. See Corona-Mendez v. Holder, 593
F.3d 1143, 1146 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court has jurisdiction to review a
discretionary determination only if it involves constitutional claims or questions of
law); Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (a claim that the
agency did not properly weigh hardship evidence does not state a colorable due
process claim); De Mercado v. Mukasey, 566 F.3d 810, 816 (9th Cir. 2008)
(evaluating hardship to a qualifying relative necessarily implicates family unity,
and to carve out an exception to lack of jurisdiction would “swallow the rule
itself”).
In light of this decision, we need not reach Kaur’s contentions regarding the
IJ’s credibility finding.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --