Miroshnik v. Holder , 362 F. App'x 780 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FILED
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                          JAN 20 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    TATIANA Y. MIROSHNIK; et al.,                    No. 06-70816
    Petitioners,                       Agency Nos. A076-362-010
    A077-378-913
    v.
    ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,            MEMORANDUM *
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted January 11, 2010 **
    Before:        BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    Tatiana Y. Miroshnik and her son, natives and citizens of Russia, petition for
    review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their
    appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their applications for
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    JT/Research
    cancellation of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2) (“Special rule for
    battered spouse or child”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We
    review de novo questions of law and claims of due process violations. Lopez-
    Umanzor v. Gonzales, 
    405 F.3d 1049
    , 1053 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition
    for review.
    Petitioners’ due process claim fails because the IJ did not demonstrate bias,
    considered the record evidence, and properly concluded that petitioners failed to
    establish that they were “battered or subjected to extreme cruelty.” See
    8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2)(A)(i)(I); cf. Lopez-Umanzor, 
    405 F.3d at 1058-59
     (IJ, who
    displayed overt skepticism regarding domestic violence, violated due process in
    refusing to hear relevant expert testimony).
    The IJ was not required to consider petitioners’ evidence of hardship
    because their failure to establish that they were “battered or subjected to extreme
    cruelty” was dispositive. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2)(A)(i); see also Lopez-
    Umanzor, 
    405 F.3d at 1053
     (an alien who fails to establish each of the criteria set
    forth in the statute is not eligible for cancellation of removal).
    Petitioners’ contention that the agency failed to consider allegations of both
    battery and extreme cruelty is not support by the record.
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    JT/Research                                 2                                    06-70816
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-70816

Citation Numbers: 362 F. App'x 780

Filed Date: 1/20/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023