David Alejandro Herrera Preciado v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID ALEJANDRO HERRERA
PRECIADO,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-72305
Agency No. A200-158-288
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 12, 2018**
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
David Alejandro Herrera Preciado, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying cancellation of removal. We dismiss
* 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
JUN 18 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-72305
the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
Herrera Preciado failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his
qualifying relative. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012).
Herrera Preciado’s contentions that the agency failed to adequately evaluate
evidence of hardship and failed to consider material evidence of hardship are not
supported by the record and do not amount to colorable claims that would invoke
our jurisdiction. See id. (absent a colorable legal or constitutional claim, the court
lacks jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination regarding
hardship); Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2010) (“To be
colorable in this context, . . . the claim must have some possible validity.” (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted)); 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.” (internal citation
and quotation marks omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --