Gaston Flores-Valenzuela v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GASTON FLORES-VALENZUELA,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 17-72240
Agency No. A075-589-188
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 21, 2019**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Gaston Flores-Valenzuela, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal.
We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
* 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
MAY 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-72240
Flores-Valenzuela failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to
his qualifying relatives. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir.
2012) (absent a colorable legal or constitutional claim, the court lacks jurisdiction
to review the agency’s discretionary determination regarding hardship). Flores-
Valenzuela’s contentions that the agency failed to properly consider relevant
factors or evidence are not colorable and thus do not invoke our jurisdiction. See
Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005) (“To be colorable
in this context, . . . the claim must have some possible validity.” (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted)).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Flores-Valenzuela’s unexhausted contention
that the agency did not use a proper future-oriented standard in making its hardship
determination. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court
lacks jurisdiction to consider legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative
proceedings before the agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --