Alvin Navarro v. Jefferson Sessions

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 2 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALVIN M. NAVARRO, Nos. 15-70667 15-71796 Petitioner, Agency No. A206-408-295 v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney MEMORANDUM* General, Respondent. On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 26, 2017** Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. In these consolidated petitions for review, Alvin M. Navarro, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal, and denying his motion to * 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). reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). In No. 15-70667, we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review, and in No. 15-71796, we deny the petition for review. Navarro’s contention that the BIA did not use the proper standard in making its hardship determination is not supported, where the record shows the BIA conducted a future-oriented analysis. See Figueroa v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 487, 497- 98 (9th Cir. 2008) (agency must conduct a “future-oriented analysis” in determining whether “removal would result in an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to qualifying relatives) (emphasis in original). We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that Navarro failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005). Navarro has waived any challenge to the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (issues not raised in an opening brief are waived). IN No. 15-70667; PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. IN No. 15-71796; PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 15-70667 15-71796 15-70667 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Alvin Navarro v. Jefferson Sessions 2 October 2017 Agency Unpublished b0a6b8283a54e05f2677f0f8509864ea31484a43

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals