Cortes Pimentel v. Gonzales , 356 F. App'x 83 ( 2009 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 07 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CESAR MARTIN CORTES PIMENTEL; No. 05-70633
AUDALIA PATINO,
Agency Nos. A075-647-237
Petitioners, A075-653-157
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009 **
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Cesar Martin Cortes Pimentel and Audalia Patino, husband and wife and
natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
IH/Research
(“IJ”) decision denying their application for cancellation of removal. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due
process violations in immigration proceedings, Sanchez-Cruz v. INS, 255 F.3d 775,
779 (9th Cir. 2001), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s discretionary determination that
petitioners failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a
qualifying relative. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.
2003).
Petitioners contend that the IJ violated due process by denying them an
opportunity to fully present their case before a fair and neutral judge. Contrary to
petitioners’ contention, the proceedings were not “so fundamentally unfair that
[they were] prevented from reasonably presenting [their] case.” Colmenar v. INS,
210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). Moreover, petitioners failed
to demonstrate that additional evidence or testimony may have affected the
outcome of the proceedings. See id. (requiring prejudice to prevail on a due
process challenge).
Petitioners’ contention that the agency violated their due process rights by
disregarding their evidence of hardship is not supported by the record and does not
amount to a colorable constitutional claim. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424
IH/Research 2 05-70633
F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005). The IJ’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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
IH/Research 3 05-70633