Felipe De Jesus Lamas Flores; Emelia Garcia De Lamas v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FELIPE DE JESUS LAMAS FLORES;
EMELIA GARCIA DE LAMAS,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 05-70324
05-74221
Agency Nos. A077-374-934
A077-374-935
MEMORANDUM *
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
In this consolidated petition for review, Felipe De Jesus Lamas Flores and
Emelia Garcia De Lamas, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders dismissing their appeal from an
FILED
AUG 09 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

05-70324/05-74221 2
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their applications for cancellation of
removal, and denying their motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo constitutional challenges, Ram v. INS, 243
F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir. 2001). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for
review in No. 05-70324, and grant the petition for review in No. 05-74221 and
remand.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that petitioners failed
to establish the requisite hardship. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 596
(9th Cir. 2006). Contrary to petitioners’ contentions, the agency’s interpretation of
the hardship standard falls within the broad range of permissible interpretations of
the statute. See Ramirez-Perez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 1001, 1005-06 (9th Cir.
2003). Petitioners failed to exhaust the contention that the IJ made erroneous
factual findings. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
We are in receipt of Petitioners’ Re-Submission of Supplemental
Documentation, which attaches a FedEx delivery record. If credited, the delivery
record shows that petitioners’ motion to reopen was timely received by the BIA.
We remand No. 05-74221 to the BIA for further consideration of the timeliness of

-- 2 of 3 --

05-70324/05-74221 3
petitioners’ motion to reopen in light of the delivery record. See INS v. Ventura,
537 U.S. 12, 17 (2002).
In No. 05-70324: PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part;
DENIED in part.
In No. 05-74221: PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED;
REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --