Jose Abundez-Abundez 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).
RB/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ABUNDEZ-ABUNDEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 06-74755
07-70892
Agency No. A078-686-019
MEMORANDUM *
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Jose Abundez-Abundez, 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”) removal
FILED
MAR 01 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

RB/Research 07-70892 2
order, and the BIA’s order denying his subsequent motion to reopen. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo claims of due process violations
in immigration proceedings. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th
Cir. 2005). In No. 06-74755, we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for
review, and in No. 07-70892, we deny the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that
Abundez-Abundez failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a
qualifying relative. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.
2003). Abundez-Abundez’s claim that the IJ violated his due process rights by
refusing to consider new hardship evidence on remand fails in light of the BIA’s
subsequent consideration of the evidence on appeal. See Colmenar v. INS, 210
F.3d 967, 972 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring prejudice to prevail on a due process
challenge).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Abundez-Abundez’s motion
to reopen, because the BIA considered the evidence he submitted and acted within
its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to warrant
reopening. See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (BIA’s denial of

-- 2 of 3 --

RB/Research 07-70892 3
a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is “arbitrary, irrational or contrary to
law”).
Abundez-Abundez’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
In No. 06-74755: PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part;
DENIED in part.
In No. 07-70892: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --