FERNANDO SANDOVAL VALLES, AKA Luis Alberto Sandoval v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FERNANDO SANDOVAL VALLES, AKA
Luis Alberto Sandoval,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 17-71457
Agency No. A201-161-949
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 11, 2019**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Fernando Sandoval Valles, 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 (“IJ”) denial of cancellation of removal and
administrative closure. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
* 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 13 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-71457
review de novo questions of law. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir.
2016). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
Sandoval Valles had not shown exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his
qualifying relatives for cancellation of removal, because he has not presented a
colorable constitutional or legal claim to invoke our jurisdiction over the agency’s
discretionary determination. 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). Sandoval Valles’s contentions that the IJ erred in his hardship analysis
are not supported.
Sandoval Valles’s contentions that the BIA engaged in impermissible fact
finding and did not review the record are not supported. See Fernandez v.
Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (alien must overcome presumption
that BIA did review all evidence when the BIA plainly stated it reviewed the
record).
Sandoval Valles establishes no error in the agency’s denial of administrative
closure on the record before it, under the factors applicable at the time of the
hearing. See Gonzalez-Caraveo v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 885, 891 (9th Cir. 2018).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --