Victor Miranda-Hernandez v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VICTOR MIRANDA-HERNANDEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-70464
Agency No. A089-245-533
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 9, 2015**
Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Victor Miranda-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming an immigration
judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the
petition for review.
FILED
DEC 15 2015
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 --

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
Miranda-Hernandez failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to
a qualifying relative. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.
2003). Miranda-Hernandez’s contention that the hardship standard set forth in 8
U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D) is unconstitutionally vague does not constitute a colorable
constitutional claim or question of law that would invoke our jurisdiction. See 8
U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.
2005) (“traditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process
violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims that would invoke our
jurisdiction”).
We do not consider Miranda-Hernandez’s contentions regarding physical
presence because his failure to establish hardship is dispositive. See 8
U.S.C. §1229b(b)(1)(D); Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004)
(“As a general rule courts . . . are not required to make findings on issues the
decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.” (citation and quotation
marks omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
14-70464 2

-- 2 of 2 --