Nicolas Cruz-Villagomez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
NICOLAS CRUZ-VILLAGOMEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71184
Agency No. A078-673-213
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals and the
former Legalization Appeals Unit
Submitted August 10, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, HAWKINS, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Nicolas Cruz-Villagomez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal,
and the former Legalization Appeals Unit’s (“LAU”) order dismissing his appeal
FILED
AUG 30 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-71184 2
from the denial of his Special Agricultural Worker (“SAW”) application. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1160(e)(3) and 1252. We review for abuse of
discretion the denial of a SAW application, Perez-Martin v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d
752, 758 (9th Cir. 2005), and review de novo due process claims, Iturribarria v.
INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review.
The LAU did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Cruz-Villagomez’s SAW
appeal where Cruz-Villagomez failed to provide the kind of evidence of qualifying
employment sufficient to rebut the government’s derogatory evidence. See
8 U.S.C. § 1160(b)(3)(B)(iii) (an applicant must provide sufficient evidence to
show qualifying employment “as a matter of just and reasonable inference”); see
also Perez-Martin, 394 F.3d at 759 (considering hearsay statements recorded in a
government report). It follows that the LAU did not violate due process. See Lata
v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for a due process
violation). We need not consider whether the LAU erred by questioning the
validity of the signature on the employer affidavit provided by Cruz-Villagomez.
In his opening brief, Cruz-Villagomez fails to address, and therefore has
waived any challenge to, the agency’s decision denying his application for

-- 2 of 3 --

08-71184 3
cancellation of removal. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th
Cir. 1996).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --