Jaimes-Medina v. Holder , 362 F. App'x 854 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CIRILO JAIMES-MEDINA; BEATRIZ No. 07-73349
DIAZ-GUTIERREZ,
Agency Nos. A074-332-987
Petitioners, A095-604-795
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2009 **
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Cirilo Jaimes-Medina and his wife, Beatriz Diaz-Gutierrez, natives and
citizens of Mexico, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”) denying their appeal of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision
*
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).
AR/Research
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. Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 620 (9th Cir.
2006). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
Petitioners’ contention that the IJ violated due process by basing part of his
hardship determination on the temporary nature of their qualifying relative’s need
for counseling is not supported by the record and does not amount to a colorable
constitutional claim. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.
2005) (“[T]raditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process
violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims that would invoke our
jurisdiction.”). We therefore lack jurisdiction over this claim.
Contrary to petitioners’ contention, the BIA’s decision adequately addressed
the due process claim, thus making remand under Montes-Lopez v. Gonzales, 486
F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2007) unnecessary; see also Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d
592, 603-04 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
AR/Research 2 07-73349