Jorge Ramirez-Ramirez v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JORGE RAMIREZ-RAMIREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
Nos. 16-72352
17-70108
Agency No. A205-004-851
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 12, 2018**
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Jorge Ramirez-Ramirez, 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
* 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 3 --

2 17-70108
his application for cancellation of removal (No. 16-72352) and the BIA’s order
denying his motion to reopen (No. 17-70108). We dismiss the petitions for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
Ramirez-Ramirez 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). Although the court would retain jurisdiction over colorable questions of law
and constitutional claims, Ramirez-Ramirez’s contentions that the agency failed to
consider hardship evidence regarding his son and failed to apply a cumulative
analysis are not supported by the record, and do not amount to colorable claims
that would invoke our jurisdiction. See id. (“To be colorable in this context, . . . the
claim must have some possible validity.” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of Ramirez-Ramirez’s
motion to reopen because the new evidence he presented concerns the same
hardship grounds previously relied upon to support his application for cancellation
of removal. See Garcia v. Holder, 621 F.3d 906, 911 (9th Cir. 2010) (this court’s
jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen is limited to cases in
which petitioner presents new evidence that “is so distinct from that considered
previously as to make the motion to reopen a request for new relief itself, rather
than for reconsideration of a prior denial” (citation and internal quotation marks

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-70108
omitted)); see also Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006)
(finding that evidence is cumulative when it pertains “to the inevitable passage of
time between [petitioner’s] removal hearing and the BIA’s adjudication of her
appeal”).
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

-- 3 of 3 --