Edgar Raul Martinez- Barrientos, a.k.a. Edgar Raul Martinez v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDGAR RAUL MARTINEZ-
BARRIENTOS, a.k.a. Edgar Raul
Martinez,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-73570
Agency No. A040-197-600
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2014**
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Edgar Raul Martinez-Barrientos, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for
FILED
MAY 28 2014
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 --

cancellation of removal and waivers of inadmissibility under section 212(h) and
former section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. We dismiss the
petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) to review the BIA’s
determination that Martinez-Barrientos did not merit relief from removal as a
matter of discretion. See Mendoza v. Holder, 623 F.3d 1299, 1302 (9th Cir. 2010)
(section 212(h) waiver); Bermudez v. Holder, 586 F.3d 1167, 1169 (9th Cir. 2009)
(per curiam) (cancellation of removal); Palma-Rojas v. INS, 244 F.3d 1191, 1192
(9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (former section 212(c) waiver). Martinez-Barrientos
raises no colorable constitutional claim or question of law that would invoke our
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). See Bermudez, 586 F.3d at 1169
(“‘[A]ny challenge of [the BIA’s] discretionary determination must present a
colorable claim’ in order for this court to exercise jurisdiction.” (citation omitted));
Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir. 2009) (“To be colorable in
this context, . . . the claim must have some possible validity.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
12-73570 2

-- 2 of 2 --