Jorge Davila-Rodriguez v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JORGE DAVILA-RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 17-71268
Agency No. A200-898-470
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 15, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Jorge Davila-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal.
We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
* 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
JUL 17 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-71268
Davila-Rodriguez failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his
qualifying relatives. 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). Davila-
Rodriguez’s contentions that the agency failed to properly consider relevant factors
or evidence are not colorable and thus do not invoke our jurisdiction. See
Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005) (“To be colorable
in this context, . . . the claim must have some possible validity.” (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted)).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Davila-Rodriguez’s unexhausted contention
that the agency did not use a proper future-oriented standard in assessing hardship.
See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court lacks
jurisdiction to consider legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative
proceedings before the agency).
Davila-Rodriguez’s motion to remand (Docket Entry No. 25) is denied. See
Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1160-62 (9th Cir. 2019) (initial notice to
appear need not include time and date information to vest jurisdiction in the
immigration court).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --