Manuel Muro Cervantes v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MANUEL MURO CERVANTES,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72749
Agency No. A035-878-554
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Manuel Muro Cervantes, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of
removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
FILED
NOV 28 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

questions of law. Cordoba v. Holder, 726 F.3d 1106, 1113 (9th Cir. 2013). We
deny the petition for review.
Contrary to Muro Cervantes’ contention, the BIA sufficiently addressed his
claim that his IJ proceedings were fundamentally unfair, where the BIA stated that
it reviewed the arguments advanced on appeal and concluded that the IJ did not err
in determining that Muro Cervantes failed to demonstrate that he warrants relief as
a matter of discretion. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010)
(“What is required is merely that [the BIA] consider the issues raised, and
announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive
that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted.” (citation and quotation marks
omitted)).
In addition, Muro Cervantes has not established that his proceedings before
the IJ were fundamentally unfair or tainted by bias. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.10(b)
(“[i]n deciding the individual cases before them, . . . immigration judges shall
exercise their independent judgment and discretion”); Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d
1271, 1276 (9th Cir. 2007).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
11-72749 2

-- 2 of 2 --