Ignacio Hernandez Ugalde 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
IGNACIO HERNANDEZ UGALDE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74131
Agency No. A095-624-559
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.
Ignacio Hernande Ugalde, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals upholding the
immigration judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal based on
FILED
SEP 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-74131 2
his failure to establish the requisite hardship to his United States citizen children,
and denying his motion to remand to consider additional hardship evidence.
We lack jurisdiction to review the underlying discretionary determination
that petitioner failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a
qualifying relative. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.
2003). We also lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination
that the evidence of hardship petitioner submitted with his motion to remand was
insufficient to establish a prima facie case for cancellation of removal. See
Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 601, 603 (9th Cir. 2006).
Petitioner contends that the BIA violated his due process rights when it
failed to properly evaluate the proffered new evidence of hardship, which consisted
of additional evidence of his daughter’s speech and language problems. Petitioner
contends that the BIA should have remanded to the IJ for further consideration of
his new evidence of hardship. Petitioner’s contention, however, is contradicted by
the record because the BIA did review the proffered evidence, and concluded that
petitioner had failed to establish the requisite hardship to support his cancellation

-- 2 of 3 --

08-74131 3
of removal application.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --