ALAN MARTINEZ-BALLESTEROS, AKA Alan Martinez, AKA Ramon Alan Martinez- Ballesteros v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALAN MARTINEZ-BALLESTEROS, AKA
Alan Martinez, AKA Ramon Alan Martinez-
Ballesteros,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 19-71544
Agency No. A205-931-069
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 19, 2023**
Phoenix, Arizona
Before: NGUYEN, COLLINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Alan Martinez-Ballesteros, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of his application for an adjustment
of status. We lack jurisdiction to review this discretionary decision, and we thus
* 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
JUL 12 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
dismiss the petition.
A noncitizen who has been “inspected and admitted” may apply for an
adjustment of status, provided (among other things) that the noncitizen “is
admissible to the United States for permanent residence.” 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a). Upon
receipt of a valid application, the Attorney General has the discretion to adjust the
noncitizen’s status “to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.”
Id. Because the decision to grant or deny an adjustment of status is discretionary,
our review is expressly limited by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), which provides that
“no court shall have jurisdiction to review . . . any judgment regarding the granting
of relief” under § 1255. This limitation includes “not just ‘the granting of relief’ but
also any judgment relating to the granting of relief.” Patel v. Garland, 142 S. Ct.
1614, 1622 (2022).
Although § 1252(a)(2)(D) “preserves review of constitutional claims and
questions of law,” Patel, 142 S. Ct. at 1623, a petitioner may not create jurisdiction
simply by dressing up a discretionary decision as a question of law. See Mendez-
Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir. 2009). Rather, the petitioner must
raise a colorable question of law. See id. Martinez-Ballesteros’s purported legal
question, however, fails to do so. He argues that the BIA committed a legal error in
reviewing his adjustment of status application under In re Marin, 16 I. & N. Dec.
581 (BIA 1978), when it should have applied In re Arai, 13 I. & N. Dec. 494 (BIA

-- 2 of 3 --

3
1970). But while he is correct that Marin and Arai concern different forms of
discretionary relief, the decisions apply the same standard in the exercise of that
discretion. See Paredes-Urrestarazu v. INS, 36 F.3d 801, 810 (9th Cir. 1994). Both
require the agency to conduct an individualized balancing of positive and negative
factors, and neither proposes any limitations on what factors the BIA may consider
or how it must weigh them. See Arai, 13 I. & N. Dec. at 495–96; Marin, 16 I. & N.
Dec. at 584–85. Because the BIA applied that same standard in denying Martinez-
Ballesteros’s adjustment of status, we lack jurisdiction to review his petition. See
Mendez-Castro, 552 F.3d at 980.
DISMISSED.

-- 3 of 3 --