Edwin Rolando Perez 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).
NHY/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDWIN ROLANDO PEREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 06-74292,
07-70817
Agency No. A072-124-380
MEMORANDUM *
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Edwin Rolando Perez, a native
and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

NHY/Research 07-70817 2
decision denying his application for cancellation of removal, and the BIA’s order
denying his motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
We review de novo questions of law, including due process violations, Vasquez-
Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir. 2003), and review for abuse of
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773
(9th Cir. 2008). In No. 06-74292, we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition
for review. In No. 07-70817, we deny the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
Perez failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying
relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005).
Contrary to Perez’s contentions, the agency’s application of the hardship
standard falls within the broad range authorized by the statute. See Ramirez-Perez
v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 1001, 1004 (9th Cir. 2003). Petitioner’s claim that the
agency violated due process by failing to follow precedent is unsupported by the
record. See Martinez-Rosas, 424 F.3d at 930.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Perez’s motion to reopen
where the new evidence he presented with his motion to reopen did not support
prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439
F.3d 592, 600 (9th Cir. 2006).

-- 2 of 3 --

NHY/Research 07-70817 3
We agree with the agency that Perez failed to show he was prejudiced by his
former counsel’s performance. See Lara Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 973
(9th Cir. 2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2005) (order) (to prevail on an
ineffective assistance of counsel claim, petitioner must demonstrate prejudice).
IN 06-74292, PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part;
DENIED in part.
IN 07-70817, PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --