Jose Rodriguez Rendon v. Eric H. Holder Jr. , 381 F. App'x 706 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 03 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE DOLORES RODRIGUEZ No. 09-70150
RENDON; et al.,
Agency Nos. A097-349-790
Petitioners, A097-349-791
A097-349-792
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM *
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010 **
San Francisco, California
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Jose Dolores Rodriguez Rendon and his wife and their minor son, natives
and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the decision of the Board of
*
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).
Immigration Appeals denying their motion to reconsider the BIA’s refusal to
reopen the underlying denial of their application for cancellation of removal based
on their failure to establish the requisite hardship to their qualifying relatives.
Petitioners contend that the BIA violated their due process rights by not
allowing them to present evidence and witnesses to establish the extreme hardship
required to qualify for cancellation relief. The BIA concluded that the minor
petitioner had failed to establish a qualifying relative. The BIA also concluded that
petitioner’s letter, describing their United States citizen son’s liver disorder, failed
to establish extreme hardship.
The BIA did not violate petitioners’ due process rights by refusing to
reconsider or reopen their application for cancellation of relief. The BIA did not
abuse its discretion when it denied petitioners’ motion to reconsider because the
motion failed to identify any error of law or fact that justified relief. See 8 C.F.R. §
1003.2(b)(1) (2009). We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s underlying
discretionary determination that petitioners failed to establish exceptional and
extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See Martinez-Rosas v.
Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005). Also, the BIA did not abuse its
discretion in denying petitioners’ underlying motion to reopen because they failed
to present material new evidence of hardship. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (2009).
2 09-70150
It follows that petitioners did not establish a due process violation. See Lata v.
INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to succeed on a due
process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 09-70150