Efrain Gomez Valenzuela 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
EFRAIN GOMEZ VALENZUELA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-72214
Agency No. A044-568-768
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 24, 2013**
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Efrain Gomez Valenzuela, a native and citizen of Mexico and lawful
permanent resident, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
order dismissing, upon reconsideration, his appeal from an immigration judge’s
FILED
OCT 01 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-72214 2
denial of cancellation of removal as a matter of discretion. Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination that Gomez
Valenzuela’s application for cancellation of removal did not warrant a favorable
exercise of discretion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (barring review of denials
of discretionary relief). Gomez Valenzuela’s contention that he was denied
meaningful review is not supported by the record and therefore is not a colorable
claim invoking our jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Martinez-Rosas v.
Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]raditional abuse of discretion
challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not constitute colorable
constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --