Aguilera Marin v. Holder

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PEDRO AGUILERA MARIN, No. 07-70875
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-301-624
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, 2010 **
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Pedro Aguilera Marin, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for cancellation of
*
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
removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings, Sandoval-Luna v.
Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam), and we dismiss in part
and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
Aguilera Marin failed to demonstrate exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.
See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005). Aguilera
Marin’s contention that the agency deprived him of due process by misapplying
the law to the facts of his case does not state a colorable due process claim. See id.
Aguilera Marin contends the IJ violated due process by denying his request
for a continuance and by excluding certain evidence regarding his daughter’s
medical and psychological condition. Contrary to Aguilera Marin’s contentions,
the proceedings were not “so fundamentally unfair that [he] was prevented from
reasonably presenting his case.” Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.
2000) (citation omitted).
We reject Aguilera Marin’s attempt to supplement the record. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(4)(A) (“[T]he court shall decide the petition only on the administrative
record on which the order of removal is based.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
IH/Research 2 07-70875