Zavala Lemus v. Holder , 358 F. App'x 912 ( 2009 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 11 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ADRIAN ZAVALA LEMUS; CLAUDIA No. 07-71142
PATRICIA MEDRANO CRUZ; CESAR
ISRAEL ZAMORA MEDRANO, Agency Nos. A096-360-249
A095-295-036
Petitioners, A095-295-037
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 1, 2009 **
San Francisco, California
Before: HUG, SKOPIL and BEEZER, Circuit Judges.
Alien-spouses Claudia Patricia Medrano-Cruz and Adrian Zavala-Lemus
and their adult son Cesar Israel Zamora-Medrano petition from the Board of
Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) decision denying their motion to reopen. We
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion and will
reverse only if its decision is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” Singh v.
INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8
U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We deny the petition for review.
The facts of this case are known to the parties. We do not repeat them.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to reopen. To
show prejudice, an alien must show “plausible grounds for relief” on the merits.
Serrano v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 1317, 1319 (9th Cir. 2006). To qualify for
cancellation of removal, an alien must establish, inter alia, “that removal would
result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien’s spouse, parent,
or child, who is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for
permanent residence.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). The petitioners in this case do
not establish, nor does the record support any “exceptional and extremely unusual
hardship” that their citizen-children face, other than the normal hardships
associated with moving, such as changing schools.
Denial of the petitioners’ motion does not violate due process. See Munoz
v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 950, 954 (9th Cir. 2003).
DENIED.
2