Salva Estrada Alvarez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SALVA ESTRADA ALVAREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-72549
Agency No. A070-644-302
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 6, 2012**
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Salva Estrada Alvarez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
remand. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
discretion the denial of a motion to remand, Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d
FILED
MAR 15 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-72549 2
1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Estrada Alvarez’s motion to
remand to apply for cancellation of removal based on his marriage to a lawful
permanent resident where Estrada Alvarez failed to submit any evidence of
exceptional and extremely unusual hardship, and therefore did not show prima
facie eligibility for relief. See Partap v. Holder, 603 F.3d 1173, 1175 (9th Cir.
2010) (per curiam) (no abuse of discretion in denying motion to remand to apply
for cancellation after the birth of a U.S. citizen child where petitioner “did not
tender any evidence showing exceptional and extremely unusual hardship”)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Estrada Alvarez’s contention that it is improper for the BIA to make a prima
facie hardship determination in ruling on a motion to remand is unavailing. See id.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --