United States v. 2020-05-11 | 18-70911 | OSCAR RAMIREZ-GARCIA V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

OSCAR ARMANDO RAMIREZ-GARCIA,
AKA Olegario Garcia-Ramirez,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 18-70911

Agency No. A200-974-565

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 6, 2020
**

Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Oscar Armando Ramirez-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his ap-
peal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for cancella-
tion of removal and voluntary departure. 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

MAY 11 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 18-70911
including claims of due process violations. Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d
825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014). We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s decision denying cancellation of
removal and voluntary departure as a matter of discretion and its discretionary de-
termination that Ramirez-Garcia did not show exceptional and extremely unusual
hardship to his U.S. citizen child, where Ramirez-Garcia does not present a colora-
ble legal or constitutional claim. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f); 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (a)(2)(D); 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 determination regarding hardship).
Ramirez-Garcia’s contentions that the agency erred or violated due process
because it did not properly weigh or consider evidence, or did not adequately ex-
plain its decision, are not colorable. See Vilchiz-Soto, 688 F.3d at 644 (“traditional
abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not pre-
sent sufficiently colorable constitutional questions as to give this court jurisdic-
tion”); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (“What is required
is merely that [the agency] consider the issues raised, and announce its decision in
terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and
thought and not merely reacted.” (citation omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.