Sergio Ruben Garcia-Chavira v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SERGIO RUBEN GARCIA-CHAVIRA,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-70508
Agency No. A097-422-245
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Sergio Ruben Garcia-Chavira, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying cancellation of removal. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
MAR 20 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-70508
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Contrary to Garcia-Chavira’s contention, the BIA used the proper “future-
oriented” standard in determining that he failed to show exceptional and extremely
unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See Figueroa v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 487,
497-98 (9th Cir. 2008) (agency must conduct a “future-oriented analysis” in
determining whether “removal would result in an exceptional and extremely
unusual hardship” to qualifying relatives (emphasis in original)). We otherwise
lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary hardship determination. See
Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (absent a colorable legal
or constitutional claim, the court lacks jurisdiction to review the agency’s
discretionary hardship determination).
Because the BIA conducted a de novo review of the hardship determination,
we do not consider Garcia-Chavira’s challenges to the IJ’s hardship determination.
See Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1061 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Where the
BIA conducts an independent review of the IJ’s findings, we review the BIA’s
decision and not that of the IJ.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --