Rey Roman Trujillo v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
REY ROMAN TRUJILLO,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-72206
Agency No. A096-342-493
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 26, 2016**
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Rey Roman Trujillo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal.
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
FILED
MAY 03 2016
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 --

constitutional claims and questions of law. Vilchez v. Holder, 682 F.3d 1195, 1198
(9th Cir. 2012). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Because the agency denied cancellation of removal as a matter of discretion,
our jurisdiction is limited to colorable constitutional claims and questions of law.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), (D). Roman Trujillo’s contention that the agency
applied the incorrect standard in evaluating his application is not supported by the
record. His contention challenging the agency’s consideration of the equities in his
case does not constitute a colorable question of law that would invoke our
jurisdiction. See Bazua-Cota v. Gonzales, 466 F.3d 747, 748-49 (9th Cir. 2006) (a
petitioner may not attack a discretionary decision simply by phrasing his abuse of
discretion challenge as a question of law).
We do not reach Roman Trujillo’s contentions regarding the agency’s
adverse credibility finding because the BIA relied on other factors in making its
determination.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
14-72206 2

-- 2 of 2 --