Juan Francisco Melendez- Urquiza v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN FRANCISCO MELENDEZ-
URQUIZA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-72066
Agency No. A096-229-367
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 19, 2012**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Juan Francisco Melendez-Urquiza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8
FILED
DEC 21 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations and
questions of law, Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny
the petition for review.
Contrary to Melendez-Urquiza’s contention, the agency’s interpretation of
the hardship standard for cancellation of removal falls within the broad range
authorized by the statute. See Ramirez-Perez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 1001, 1004-06
(9th Cir. 2003). It follows that his due process claim fails. See Lata v. INS, 204
F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (an alien must show error and substantial
prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
We reject Melendez-Urquiza’s equal protection challenge. See Dillingham
v. INS, 267 F.3d 996, 1007 (9th Cir. 2001) (“In order to succeed on his [equal
protection] challenge, the petitioner must establish that his treatment differed from
that of similarly situated persons.”), overruled on other grounds by Nunez-Reyes v.
Holder, 646 F.3d 684 (9th Cir. 2011).
Melendez-Urquiza’s contention that the Attorney General exceeded his
authority in promulgating 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(i) is now foreclosed by Garfias-
Rodriguez v. Holder, No. 09-72603, 2012 WL 5077137, at *16-20 (9th Cir. Oct.
09-72066 2

-- 2 of 3 --

19, 2012) (en banc) (holding that the promulgation of 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(i) was a
proper exercise of the Attorney General’s authority).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
09-72066 3

-- 3 of 3 --