Eloisa Marisol Resendiz v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELOISA MARISOL RESENDIZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-71130
Agency No. A076-688-423
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.
Eloisa Marisol Resendiz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.§ § §
§ 1252. We review de novo constitutional claims and questions of law. Pechenkov
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 --

v. Holder, 705 F.3d 444, 449 (9th Cir. 2012). We dismiss in part and deny in part
the petition for review
Because Resendiz is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) based on
her conviction for an offense relating to a controlled substance, and under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) based on her conviction for an aggravated felony, our
jurisdiction is limited to colorable constitutional claims or questions of law. See 8
U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C)-(D). Resendiz’s contention that the agency abused its
discretion in determining that she had been convicted of a particularly serious
crime does not raise a constitutional claim or colorable question of law that would
invoke our jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). See Pechenkov, 705 F.3d
at 447-49 (holding that § 1252(a)(2)(C) barred review of the agency’s finding that
petitioner’s aggravated felony conviction was a particularly serious crime where
petitioner sought only “a re-weighing of the factors involved in that discretionary
determination”).
We are not persuaded that the BIA erred in noting the drug involved and the
location of the transaction in its determination that Resendiz did not establish that
her drug conviction is not a particularly serious crime.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
12-71130 2

-- 2 of 2 --