Hernan Roberto Mollinedo Cano 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 Honorable Algenon L. Marbley, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HERNAN ROBERTO MOLLINEDO
CANO; TATIANA PAULINA
MOLLINEDO; EDMI SHANTALL
MOLLINEDO ICHAZO; DANIEL
MAURICIO MOLLINEDO ICHAZO,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney
General,
Respondent.
Nos. 06-70303 & 07-71749
Agency Nos. A079-544-368
A079-544-369
A079-544-370
A078-112-372
MEMORANDUM*
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted June 8, 2010
Pasadena, California
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, RAWLINSON, Circuit Judge and
MARBLEY, District Judge. **
FILED
AUG 02 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

page 2
Hernan and Tatiana Mollinedo are ineligible for asylum because the IJ didn’t
find circumstances excusing them from the requirement of applying within a year
after they arrived in the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). The children
on the application weren’t subject to the same time bar. See, e.g., El Himri v.
Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 932, 936 (9th Cir. 2004). We therefore remand to the BIA to
consider the merits of the children’s asylum claims, and whether to grant a
continuance pending resolution of their adjustment-of-status applications.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that the family is
unlikely to be persecuted or tortured in Bolivia, so we uphold the decisions not to
withhold removal or grant relief under the Convention Against Torture. See
Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010). We also uphold
the denials of cancellation of removal because the IJ found that no qualifying
relative would suffer exceptional hardship. See Tampubolon v. Holder, 598 F.3d
521, 527 (9th Cir. 2010). The evidentiary rulings the family criticizes caused no
“substantial prejudice” to any of its claims. Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968,
973 (9th Cir. 2004). And it was not an abuse of discretion to deny the motions to
reopen. See Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS, 282 F.3d 1218, 1222 (9th Cir. 2002).

-- 2 of 3 --

page 3
We stayed the time for voluntary departure on January 19, 2006. The stay
remains in place for the children on remand but continues for their parents only
until the mandate issues.
GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART AND REMANDED. The
parties shall bear their own costs for these petitions for review.

-- 3 of 3 --