Rene Marquez-Huerta 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
RENE MARQUEZ-HUERTA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-72912
Agency No. A095-663-372
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Rene Marquez-Huerta, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of
FILED
OCT 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-72912 2
constitutional violations in immigration proceedings, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d
889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review.
Marquez-Huerta’s contention that the agency’s application of the ten-year
continuous physical presence requirement violated his due process rights is
unavailing. See Padilla-Padilla v. Gonzales, 463 F.3d 972, 978-79 (9th Cir. 2006).
Marquez-Huerta’s contention that he was denied a full and fair hearing is
unavailing because he failed to demonstrate that additional testimony may have
affected the outcome of the proceedings. Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th
Cir. 2000) (citation omitted) (requiring prejudice to prevail on a due process
challenge).
We do not consider Marquez-Huerta’s contentions regarding hardship and
moral character because his failure to establish continuous physical presence is
dispositive. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --