MARIA SANTOS CRUZ-BARAJAS and YOSIMAR BARAJAS-CRUZ 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MARIA SANTOS CRUZ-BARAJAS and
YOSIMAR BARAJAS-CRUZ,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-71608
Agency Nos. A099-577-340
A099-577-339
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2010**
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Petitioners Maria Santos Cruz-Barajas and Yosimar Barajas-Cruz, mother
and son and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of a Board of
Immigration Appeals order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s
FILED
OCT 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
(“IJ”) denial of their application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the
petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that,
even though all witnesses testified credibly, petitioners failed to show exceptional
and extremely unusual hardship to the United States citizen child. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(B); Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 979 (9th Cir. 2009).
Petitioners’ contentions that the Board failed to properly consider and weigh
all evidence of hardship do not raise a colorable due process claim.
Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005).
We decline to address petitioners’ unexhausted contention that they were
denied due process and a fair trial because the IJ was not neutral. Ontiveros-Lopez
v. INS, 123 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir. 2000) (declining to consider a claim that
Board did not have first opportunity to consider).
We lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s denial of petitioners’ motion to
reopen, which introduced further evidence of hardship to the United States citizen
child. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 600 (9th Cir. 2006) (explaining
that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars jurisdiction when question presented in motion to
reopen is essentially the same hardship ground originally decided).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --