Testo completo
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
LUIS MALDONADO-HERNANDEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-72394
Agency No. A028-496-894
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Luis Maldonado-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order sustaining the
government’s appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision granting his
application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
FILED
JAN 06 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
08-72394 2
§ 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration
proceedings, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we dismiss
in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that
Maldonado-Hernandez failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship
to a qualifying relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th
Cir. 2005).
Contrary to Maldonado-Hernandez’s contention, the BIA did not violate due
process by reviewing de novo the IJ’s hardship determination. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.1(d)(3)(ii).
Maldonado-Hernandez’s contention that the BIA failed to consider his
psychological report fails because he has not overcome the presumption that the
BIA reviewed the record. See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96
(9th Cir. 2000).
Maldonado-Hernandez’s remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part, DENIED in part.
-- 2 of 2 --