Leopoldo Alcarraz-Alarcon; 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
LEOPOLDO ALCARRAZ-ALARCON; et
al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-73933
Agency Nos. A070-915-584
A078-112-865
A078-112-866
A078-112-867
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Leopoldo Alcarraz-Alarcon, Elizabeth Alcarraz, Isabel Alcarraz and Daniel
Alcarraz, natives and citizens of Peru, petition pro se for review of the decision of
the Board of Immigration Appeals denying their application for cancellation of
FILED
SEP 14 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-73933 2
removal, and upholding the immigration judge’s denial of their request for a
continuance. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part,
and deny in part, the petition for review.
Lead petitioners contend that their United States citizen daughter will
experience the requisite hardship if they are forced to move to Peru, and therefore
the BIA erred in denying their application for cancellation of removal. The agency
applied the proper legal standard, and we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s
discretionary determination that lead petitioners failed to show exceptional and
extremely unusual hardship to their United States citizen child. See 8 U.S.C. §
1252(a)(2)(B); Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 979 (9th Cir. 2009).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by affirming the immigration judge’s
decision that Alcarraz-Alarcon lacked good cause for a continuance, where the
case had been continued many times over the course of seven years, and where the
new medical evidence of Elizabeth Alcarraz’s latest medical evaluation would not
have significantly added to the hardship evidence. See Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d
1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part, DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --