Jose Antonio Rodriguez 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).
KS/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70446
Agency No. A097-125-667
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals and the former Legalization Appeals Unit
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jose Antonio Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal, and the
FILED
FEB 24 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

KS/Research 07-70446 2
former Legalization Appeals Unit’s order dismissing his appeal from the denial of
his Special Agricultural Worker (“SAW”) application under 8 U.S.C. § 1160. We
have jurisdiction to review the denial of a SAW application pursuant to
8 U.S.C. § 1160(e)(3). We review de novo questions of law and claims of
constitutional violations in immigration proceedings. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d
889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review.
Rodriguez’s due process challenge based on his contention that he never
received the Notice of Intent to Deny and Notice of Decision fails because he does
not establish prejudice. See Kohli v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir.
2007) (requiring a showing of prejudice where a procedural defect is alleged); see
also Perez-Martin v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 752, 759-60 (9th Cir. 2005) (to overcome
derogatory government evidence, an applicant must provide enough evidence to
show qualifying employment “as a matter of just and reasonable inference”)
(quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1160(b)(3)(B)(iii)).
In his opening brief, Rodriguez fails to address, and therefore has waived
any challenge to, the agency’s decision denying his application for cancellation of
removal. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --