Carlos Gustavo Claros Rodriguez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
CARLOS GUSTAVO CLAROS
RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74858
Agency No. A072-528-564
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 10, 2011**
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Gustavo Claros Rodriguez, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his
applications for special rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan
FILED
JAN 18 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-74858 2
Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (“NACARA”), and for non-lawful
permanent resident cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process claims. Vasquez-Zavala v.
Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir. 2003). We dismiss in part and deny in part
the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination that Claros
Rodriguez did not establish eligibility for NACARA relief, as that finding is based
on disputed facts. See Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility
Act of 1996, § 309(c)(5)(C)(ii); cf. Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 857 (9th Cir.
2009).
We also lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination that Claros
Rodriguez 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).
Claros Rodriguez’s contentions that the IJ disregarded his evidence of
hardship and did not consider the evidence in the aggregate are not supported by
the record and do not amount to colorable constitutional claims. See
Martinez-Rosas, 424 F.3d at 930.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --