Raul Masa Montero v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAUL MASA MONTERO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-70495
Agency No. A099-580-732
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 12, 2014**
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Raul Masa Montero, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from
an immigration judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal, and
denying his motion to remand. We dismiss the petition for review.
FILED
JUN 17 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 3 --

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that Masa Montero
failed to demonstrate the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship necessary for
cancellation of removal. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir.
2012) (order) (“[A]bsent a colorable legal or constitutional claim, we lack
jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that an alien failed to
prove that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual
hardship . . . .”).
We also lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that Masa
Montero’s new evidence of hardship accompanying his motion to remand did not
alter its underlying hardship determination. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d
592, 601 (9th Cir. 2006) (“If . . . the BIA determines that a motion to reopen
proceedings in which there has already been an unreviewable discretionary
determination concerning a statutory prerequisite to relief does not make out a
prima facie case for that relief, [8 U.S.C.] § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) precludes our visiting
the merits . . . .”).
Masa Montero’s contentions that the BIA failed to consider either the
hardship evidence that he presented at the hearing or his new hardship evidence
accompanying his motion to remand are not colorable questions of law that would
invoke our jurisdiction. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 978
13-70495 2

-- 2 of 3 --

(9th Cir. 2009) (“To be colorable in this context, . . . the claim must have some
possible validity.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
13-70495 3

-- 3 of 3 --