Maria J. Barajas v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA J. BARAJAS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 09-72642
10-71263
Agency No. A077-772-829
MEMORANDUM*
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 9, 2012**
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Maria J. Barajas petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order, and the BIA’s order denying her
FILED
OCT 15 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-72642 2
motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
dismiss the petitions for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
Barajas failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her
qualifying relatives, and Barajas does not raise a colorable due process claim
challenging this hardship determination. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d
975, 978 (9th Cir. 2009).
We also lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of Barajas’ motion to
reconsider the BIA’s discretionary hardship determination, and Barajas does not
raise a colorable due process claim challenging the BIA’s denial. See Vilchiz-Soto
v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[T]he BIA’s denial of the motion to
reconsider falls outside the court’s jurisdiction because the court cannot reconsider
the discretionary, fact-based determination that petitioners failed to demonstrate
the requisite hardship.”).
Barajas’ remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --