Milagros Mondragon-Ocampo v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MILAGROS MONDRAGON-OCAMPO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-73947
Agency No. A087-544-209
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 21, 2014**
Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Milagros Mondragon-Ocampo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s denial of her application for cancellation of removal. Our
FILED
JAN 23 2014
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).
12-73947

-- 1 of 3 --

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law
and constitutional claims. Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th
Cir. 2005). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
Mondragon-Ocampo failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to
her United States citizen children. See id. at 930. Mondragon-Ocampo’s
contention that the agency violated due process by misapplying the law to the facts
of her case and misconstruing evidence of hardship is not supported by the record
and does not state a colorable due process claim that would invoke our jurisdiction.
See id. (“traditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process
violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims”); see also
Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 980-81 (9th Cir. 2009) (this court lacks
jurisdiction to review application of the exceptional and extremely unusual
hardship standard to the facts of a case, “be they disputed or otherwise”).
Mondragon-Ocampo’s contention that the BIA used the wrong standard of
review and engaged in de novo fact finding is belied by the record. See 8 C.F.R.
§1003.1(d)(3)(i)-(ii); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (an alien
must show error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
12-73947 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Mondragon-Ocampo’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
12-73947 3

-- 3 of 3 --