Jose Jesus Chavez Bermudez; Maria Leonarda Chavez Palacios 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).
AR/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE JESUS CHAVEZ BERMUDEZ;
MARIA LEONARDA CHAVEZ
PALACIOS,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72131
Agency Nos. A075-591-268
A075-591-269
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2010**
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Jose Jesus Chavez Bermudez (“Chavez”) and his wife, Maria Leonarda
Chavez Palacios, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of an
FILED
JAN 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

AR/Research 07-72131 2
order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying their motion to reopen
removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d
777, 782 (9th Cir. 2003), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for
review.
We lack jurisdiction to review Chavez’s challenge to the BIA’s September
14, 2007 decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (petition for review must be filed not
later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal).
To the extent that Chavez’s pro se brief challenges the BIA’s April 30, 2007
decision, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the October 3, 2006
motion to reopen because Chavez failed to present evidence to support any of his
contentions. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (providing that a motion to reopen “shall
be supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material”).
Chavez’s contention that the BIA violated due process by disregarding his
evidence of hardship is not supported by the record and does not amount to a
colorable constitutional claim. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930
(9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]raditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due
process violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims that would
invoke our jurisdiction.”).

-- 2 of 3 --

AR/Research 07-72131 3
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --