Ballinas-Marin

Ballinas-Marin v. Ashcroft

Good Law
110 F. App'x 777
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 20, 2004No. 02-72058California297 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Salome Edidt Ayda Ballinas-Marin, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum and suspension of deportation. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction over the IJ’s extreme hardship determination because it involves an exercise of discretion not subject to judicial review. See Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1152 (9th Cir.1997). We similarly lack jurisdiction over BallinasMarin’s non-eolorable constitutional claims. See Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1270-71 (9th Cir.2001) (“To be colorable ... the claim must have some possible validity.”).

We have jurisdiction to consider Ballinas-Marin’s remaining contentions under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). See Kalaw, 133 F.3d at 1150 . We review de novo due process contentions, Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft, 291 F.3d 594, 599-600 (9th Cir.2002).

Ballinas-Marin’s contention that her due process rights were violated because the IJ failed to adequately consider her asylum claim is unavailing because the record reflects that the IJ considered…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.