Jorge Reyes Puente v. Eric Holder, Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 29 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JORGE LUIS REYES-PUENTE, No. 09-72896
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-098-057
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 6, 2013**
Pasadena, California
Before: NOONAN, WARDLAW, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Jorge Luis Reyes-Puente (“Reyes”), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We deny in part and dismiss in
part the petition for review.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for
decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that
Reyes failed to demonstrate that his removal would result in “exceptional and
extremely unusual hardship” to his qualifying relatives. See Martinez-Rosas v.
Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir. 2005); see also Romero-Torres v.
Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir. 2003) (“We lack jurisdiction to review the
BIA's discretionary determination that an alien failed to satisfy the ‘exceptional
and extremely unusual hardship’ requirement for cancellation of removal.”).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 to review the BIA’s
determination that Reyes failed to establish ten years of continuous physical
presence in the United States. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
determination. See Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 847, 851 (9th Cir. 2004).
While Reyes presented some evidence that he entered the United States prior to
May of 1996, his inconsistent testimony on this point does not compel the
conclusion that he established the requisite ten years of continuous physical
presence in the United States. See Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1487 (9th Cir.
1997) (“To obtain reversal, petitioner must show that ‘the evidence not only
supports that conclusion, but compels it.’” (citing I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502
U.S. 478, 481 n. 1 (1992)).
2
Reyes’s contentions that the BIA required him to provide corroboration in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4)(B) and that the BIA applied an incorrect
hardship standard to his application for cancellation of removal are not supported
by the record. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir. 2009)
(dismissing the petitioner’s claims that the BIA performed a deficient hardship
analysis on the grounds that the record “patently belie[d]” the claim). The BIA
applied the correct hardship standard, see id., but determined that Reyes had failed
to meet his burden of proof.
DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3