Vadim Vladimirovich Savinskiy 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
VADIM VLADIMIROVICH
SAVINSKIY,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71940
Agency No. A071-129-244
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 27, 2012**
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Vadim Vladimirovich Savinskiy, a native and citizen of Russia, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo constitutional claims and questions of law.
FILED
OCT 6 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-71940 2
Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny in part and dismiss in
part the petition for review.
Savinskiy’s contention that the agency erred by disregarding or
mischaracterizing the evidence he submitted in support of his application for
cancellation of removal is unavailing. See Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915,
922 (9th Cir. 2006) (agency did not err where it did not refuse consideration of the
evidence and decision stated that agency considered the evidence, whether or not it
was specifically mentioned).
We lack jurisdiction over Savinskiy’s contention that the agency committed
legal error by failing to adhere to its own precedent in denying his cancellation
application in the exercise of discretion. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d
926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005) (a petitioner’s claim that the IJ misapplied precedent in
making a discretionary determination “is nothing more than an argument that the IJ
abused his discretion, a matter over which we have no jurisdiction”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --