Bonifacio Rabanales Alvarez 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 concludes this case is 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
BONIFACIO RABANALES ALVAREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-72332
Agency No. A070-501-127
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Bonifacio Rabanales Alvarez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily
affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for
cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-72332 2
review de novo due process claims, Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir. 2001),
and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Rabanales Alvarez’s contention that the BIA violated due process by
streamlining his case is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845,
848 (9th Cir. 2003) (BIA’s summary affirmance procedure does not violate due
process).
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of cancellation of removal
on hardship grounds. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.
2005).
Rabanalez Alvarez’s contention that the agency violated his due process
rights by failing to consider all the elements of his hardship claim is not supported
by the record and does not amount to a colorable constitutional claim. See
Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir. 2009).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s February 9, 2006, order dismissing
Rabanales Alvarez’s appeal from the IJ’s decision denying asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, because this
petition for review is not timely as to that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186,
1188 (9th Cir. 2003).

-- 2 of 3 --

08-72332 3
Rabanales Alvarez’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --