Miroshnik v. Holder ( 2010 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION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