Javier Baeza-Castro v. Merrick Garland

facts of the particular case, even when that challenge is cloaked as a legal

challenge,” Figueroa v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 487, 494 (9th Cir. 2008). Baeza-Castro

2 argues, in essence, that the BIA erred in weighing the discretionary factors, and

“we do not have jurisdiction to reweigh the evidence underlying the” agency’s

discretionary determination. Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 979 (9th

Cir. 2009). To the extent Baeza-Castro argues that the BIA failed to apply de novo

review, he has not raised a colorable claim. Id. at 978–80 (holding that jurisdiction

exists over a claim that the BIA applied an incorrect legal standard but only if the

claim is colorable).

3. We also lack jurisdiction over Baeza-Castro’s argument that the BIA

violated his due process rights by improperly emphasizing negative equities and

minimizing positive equities. “Traditional ‘abuse of discretion’ challenges recast

as alleged due process violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims

which would invoke our jurisdiction.” Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271

(9th Cir. 2001). We may not review the merits of the BIA’s discretionary decision

to deny cancellation of…