Jose Juan Ruiz Martinon 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JOSE JUAN RUIZ MARTINON,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-72918
Agency No. A096-362-360
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010 **
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jose Juan Ruiz Martinon, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of his motion to reopen the
underlying denial of his application for cancellation of removal based on his lack
of a qualifying relative. The BIA found that the motion was untimely, and
FILED
SEP 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

06-72918 2
alternatively, that cancellation relief was properly denied based on the lack of a
qualifying relative.
We reject Ruiz Martinon’s contention, that his equal protection and due
process rights were violated by the requirement of a qualifying relative for
cancellation relief because he should have been allowed to apply for suspension of
deportation relief which does not require a qualifying relative. See Vasquez-
Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1108-09 (9th Cir. 2003) (Congress comported
with equal protection and due process when it repealed suspension of deportation
for aliens placed in removal proceedings on or after April 1, 1997); Jimenez-
Angeles v. Ashcroft, 291 F.3d 594, 602-03 (9th Cir. 2002) (line-drawing decisions
made by Congress or the Executive Branch in immigration matters must be upheld
if they are rationally related to a legitimate government purpose).
We need not consider Ruiz Martinon’s contention regarding his continuous
physical presence because his failure to establish the requisite hardship to a
qualifying relative is dispositive. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --