Francisco Hernandez-Boyzo v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ-BOYZO,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-70525
Agency No. A095-754-692
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 22, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Francisco Hernandez-Boyzo, 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 denial of cancellation of removal and administrative
closure. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and
* 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
OCT 29 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-70525
dismiss in part the petition for review.
Hernandez-Boyzo establishes no error in the agency’s denial of
administrative closure under the factors applicable at the time of the hearing. See
Gonzalez-Caraveo v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 885, 891 (9th Cir. 2018). We do not reach
Hernandez-Boyzo’s contentions regarding an alleged lawful admission to the
United States in 1993 because the BIA determined that administrative closure was
not warranted regardless of whether the alleged admission was procedurally
regular. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and
agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
Hernandez-Boyzo failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to
his qualifying relatives. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th
Cir. 2005). Hernandez-Boyzo’s contentions regarding hardship are not colorable
and thus do not invoke our jurisdiction. 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); Martinez-Rosas, 424 F.3d at 930 (“To be colorable in this context, . . .
the claim must have some possible validity.” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --