Juana Jimenez, Miguel Jimenez- Rojas 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 finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
AP/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUANA JIMENEZ, MIGUEL JIMENEZ-
ROJAS
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 06-72051
06-72054
Agency No. A079-526-197
A079-526-196
MEMORANDUM *
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
and the former Legalization Appeals Unit
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Juana Jimenez and Miguel Jimenez-Rojas, natives and citizens of Mexico,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

AP/Research 06-72051 2
affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order (No. 06-72051), and the
former Legalization Appeals Unit’s (“LAU”) order dismissing Jimenez-Rojas’
appeal from the denial of his Special Agricultural Worker (“SAW”) application
(No. 06-72054). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
abuse of discretion the denial of a SAW application. Perez-Martin v. Ashcroft, 394
F.3d 752, 758 (9th Cir. 2005). We dismiss the petition for review in No. 06-72051
and deny the petition for review in No. 06-72054.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
petitioners failed to establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. See 8
U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); see also Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930
(9th Cir. 2005).
We also lack jurisdiction over petitioners’ remaining contentions in No. 06-
72051, which are not colorable. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975,
978 (9th Cir. 2009) (any challenge to an IJ’s discretionary determination must
present a colorable claim).
The LAU did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Jimenez-Rojas’ SAW
appeal where Jimenez-Rojas provided insufficient evidence of qualifying
employment. See Perez-Martin, 394 F.3d at 759-60 (to overcome derogatory
government evidence, an applicant must provide enough evidence to show

-- 2 of 3 --

AP/Research 06-72051 3
qualifying employment “as a matter of just and reasonable inference”) (quoting 8
U.S.C. § 1160(b)(3)(B)(iii)).
No. 06-72051: PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED
No. 06-72054: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --