Arturo Cruz-Solano 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ARTURO CRUZ-SOLANO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70786
Agency No. A090-851-513
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
former Legalization Appeals Unit
Submitted August 10, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, HAWKINS, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Arturo Cruz-Solano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the former Legalization Appeals Unit’s (“LAU”) order dismissing his appeal from
the denial of his Special Agricultural Worker (“SAW”) application. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1160(e)(3) and 1252. We review for abuse of
FILED
AUG 30 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-70786 2
discretion the denial of a SAW application, Perez-Martin v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d
752, 758 (9th Cir. 2005), and review de novo due process claims, Iturribarria v.
INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review.
The LAU did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Cruz-Solano’s SAW
appeal where Cruz-Solano provided insufficient evidence to establish as a matter
of just and reasonable inference that his work for Ukegawa Brothers, Inc. occurred
during the statutory time period. See Perez-Martin, 394 F.3d at 759-60 (to
overcome derogatory government evidence, an applicant must provide enough
evidence to show qualifying employment “as a matter of just and reasonable
inference”) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1160(b)(3)(B)(iii)). It follows that the LAU did
not violate due process. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requiring error for a due process violation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --