Jesus Patino-Rojas 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JESUS PATINO-ROJAS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-70086
Agency No. A095-406-724
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Jesus Patino-Rojas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order and denying his motion to reopen and
FILED
OCT 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

06-70086 2
motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
for abuse of discretion the denial of motions to reopen or reconsider, Mohammed v.
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005), and review de novo claims of due
process violations in immigration proceedings, Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424
F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for
review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
Patino-Rojas failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a
qualifying relative. See id.
Patino-Rojas’ contention that the IJ violated due process by failing to admit
Dr. Agorio’s medical report is not supported by the record. Patino-Rojas’
contention that the IJ violated due process by failing to allow Dr. Agorio to testify
telephonically is unavailing where Patino-Rojas has not shown that the testimony
would not have been cumulative. Cf. Kaur v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 734, 737 (9th Cir.
2004) (finding due process violation where there was no substitute for the excluded
oral testimony). In addition, Patino-Rojas’ contention that the IJ was biased is not
supported by the record. See Hassan v. INS, 927 F.2d 465, 469 (9th Cir. 1991) (the
factual record adequately supported the denial of petitioner’s relief application, and
the IJ’s conduct had no bearing on the outcome).

-- 2 of 3 --

06-70086 3
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Patino-Rojas’ motion to
reopen because the BIA considered the evidence Patino-Rojas submitted and acted
within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to
establish prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal. See Singh v. INS, 295
F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (The BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be
reversed only if it is “arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law.”).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Patino-Rojas’ motion to
reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the
BIA’s prior decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(i); Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272
F.3d 1176, 1180 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc).
Patino-Rojas’ remaining contention is unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --