United States v. 2010-07-19 | 08-71414 | JOSE VARGAS V. ERIC H. HOLDER JR | nonprecedential |…

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JOSE MANUEL VARGAS; et al.,
Petitioners,
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71414
Agency Nos. A095-306-062
A095-306-063
A078-112-672
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Jose Manuel Vargas and his family, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying
their applications for cancellation of removal and denying their motion to remand.
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in
part the petition for review.
FILED
JUL 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-71414 2
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that
petitioners 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). Petitioners’ contentions that the agency applied an incorrect hardship
standard and failed to consider relevant hardship factors are not supported by the
record and do not amount to colorable claims over which we have jurisdiction. See
Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir. 2009).
In their opening brief, petitioners fail to address, and therefore have waived
any challenge to, the BIA’s denial of their motion to remand. See Martinez-
Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED, in part; DENIED, in part.

-- 2 of 2 --