Bartolo Valerio-Estrada; Teresa Diaz Benitez; Guillermo Valerio Diaz 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
BARTOLO VALERIO-ESTRADA;
TERESA DIAZ BENITEZ; GUILLERMO
VALERIO DIAZ,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71043
Agency Nos. A095-190-481
A095-190-257
A078-112-579
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Bartolo Valerio-Estrada, Teresa Diaz Benitez, and Guillermo Valerio Diaz,
natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s
FILED
OCT 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-71043 2
decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, including
whether a state conviction is a removable offense. Banuelos-Ayon v. Holder, 611
F.3d 1080, 1082 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
The agency correctly determined that Valerio-Estrada’s criminal conviction
for corporal injury to his spouse renders him ineligible for cancellation of removal.
See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(b)(1)(C), 1227a(2)(E); Banuelos-Ayon, 611 F.3d at 1083 (a
conviction under California Penal Code § 273.5(a) constitutes a categorical crime
of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16(a)).
The agency also correctly determined Diaz-Benitez is ineligible for
cancellation of removal because she currently lacks any qualifying relatives.
8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D).
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination that Teresa failed
to show extreme hardship to a qualifying relative. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey,
552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir. 2009). In addition, we lack jurisdiction over
petitioners’ contentions that the BIA failed to consider the evidence or the
cumulative impact of their hardship evidence because they are not supported by the

-- 2 of 3 --

08-71043 3
record and do not amount to a colorable constitutional claims. See Mendez-Castro,
552 F.3d at 980 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --