Juan Garcia-Rodriguez; Guadalupe Medina-Merlos 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).
KS/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN GARCIA-RODRIGUEZ;
GUADALUPE MEDINA-MERLOS,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71643
Agency Nos. A075-755-800
A095-296-615
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2010**
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Juan Garcia-Rodriguez and Guadalupe Medina-Merlos, husband and wife
and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order sustaining the government’s appeal from an immigration
FILED
JAN 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

KS/Research 07-71643 2
judge’s decision granting petitioners cancellation of removal, and denying
petitioners’ motion to remand. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
We review de novo constitutional claims, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d
1105, 1107 (9th Cir. 2003), and review for abuse of discretion the denial of a
motion to remand, de Jesus Melendez v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 1019, 1023 (9th Cir.
2007). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction over petitioners’ contention that the BIA failed to
consider the cumulative impact of their hardship evidence because it 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).
The BIA acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence
newly presented on appeal was insufficient to warrant a remand. See Singh v. INS,
295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be
reversed if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law”). Petitioners’ due process
claim fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000).
Petitioners’ remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --