eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2011-08

Rodolfo Caldera-Saucedo v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 447 F. App'x 837 ( 2011 )


Menu:
 
  •                              NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                           AUG 17 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
RODOLFO CALDERA-SAUCEDO,                         No. 09-73780
Petitioner,                       Agency No. A095-417-703
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 1, 2011 **
Before:        LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Rodolfo Caldera-Saucedo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for
cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
*
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).
review de novo questions of law, including claims of due process violations.
Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft,
    324 F.3d 1105
    , 1107 (9th Cir. 2003). We dismiss in
part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
Caldera-Saucedo did not demonstrate “exceptional and extremely unusual
hardship” to a qualifying relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales,
    424 F.3d 926
    ,
930 (9th Cir. 2005). Contrary to Caldera-Saucedo’s contention, the agency’s
interpretation of the hardship standard falls within the broad range authorized by
the statute. See Ramirez-Perez v. Ashcroft,
    336 F.3d 1001
    , 1004-06 (9th Cir.
2003).
Caldera-Saucedo’s contention that the BIA failed to consider all the
evidence is not supported by the record.
Caldera-Saucedo’s equal protection contention regarding the rights of his
United States citizen children is not colorable. See Urbano de Malaluan v. INS,
    577 F.2d 589
    , 594 (9th Cir. 1978).
Because the BIA reviewed de novo, we do not address Caldera-Saucedo’s
challenges to the IJ’s decision. See Ghaly v. INS,
    58 F.3d 1425
    , 1430 (9th Cir.
1995) (Where the BIA conducts a de novo review, “[a]ny error committed by the IJ
2                                   09-73780
will be rendered harmless by the Board’s application of the correct legal
standard.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3                                 09-73780