Juvencio Morales Lopez v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUVENCIO MORALES LOPEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 16-73821
Agency No. A072-713-321
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2019**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Juvencio Morales Lopez, 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 decision denying cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo question of law, including
claims of due process violations. Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830
* 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
NOV 21 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-73821
(9th Cir. 2014). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
Morales Lopez did not show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his
U.S. citizen son. 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 determination regarding hardship). Morales
Lopez’s contentions that the BIA refused to consider evidence, applied the wrong
standard, or conflated legal and factual questions are not supported, and therefore
do not raise a colorable claim to invoke jurisdiction. See Martinez-Rosas v.
Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005) (“To be colorable in this context, . . .
the claim must have some possible validity.” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)). Thus, we do not address Morales Lopez’s contentions regarding
whether his son may still be considered a qualifying relative.
Morales Lopez has not demonstrated the BIA violated due process or its
own regulations in sua sponte issuing an amended order, where he has not shown
prejudice. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (“To prevail on a
due process challenge to deportation proceedings, [petitioner] must show error and
substantial prejudice. A showing of prejudice is essentially a demonstration that
the alleged violation affected the outcome of the proceedings[.]” (citations
omitted)); Kohli v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1061, 1066-67 (9th Cir. 2007) (requiring a

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-73821
showing of prejudice to demonstrate a regulatory violation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --