Federico Ramirez v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 22 2010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
FEDERICO OCAMPO RAMIREZ, No. 09-73621
Petitioner, Agency No. A076-365-168
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2010 **
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Federico Ocampo Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico,
petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for cancellation of
removal and motion for continuance. After the Board reversed the IJ’s initial grant
*
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).
of cancellation relief and remanded for further proceedings, the IJ held a hearing
and considered further evidence supporting Ramirez’s application for cancellation
of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part
and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
Ramirez failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his United
States citizen child. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B); Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey,
552 F.3d 975, 979 (9th Cir. 2009). Likewise, we lack jurisdiction to review the
agency’s denial of Ramirez’s motion to reopen based on further evidence of
hardship introduced at the IJ hearing on remand. Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d
592, 600 (9th Cir. 2006) (explaining that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars jurisdiction when
question presented in motion to reopen is essentially the same hardship ground
originally decided).
The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying Ramirez’s motion for a
continuance because Ramirez did not demonstrate good cause. 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.29; see Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1247 (9th Cir. 2008)
(reviewing for abuse of discretion).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
2