Carlos Ocampo-Cerezo 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 OCAMPO-CEREZO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-73735
Agency No. A088-915-268
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 9, 2013**
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Ocampo-Cerezo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The BIA held that the
Immigration Judge (“IJ”) properly denied Ocampo’s application for cancellation of
removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) because Ocampo had not met his burden of
FILED
FEB 07 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-73735 2
proving that his removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual
hardship to his father, who is a legal permanent resident. To the extent Ocampo
contends that the agency employed an improper legal standard when construing the
meaning of “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship,” we have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). See Figueroa v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 487, 493-96
(9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
Ocampo contends that the IJ applied the incorrect legal standard by
considering his father’s current situation instead of considering the hardship his
father would experience in the future. As part of this argument, Ocampo contends
that it was error for the IJ to take into consideration the financial support his
siblings would provide to their father upon Ocampo’s removal because the siblings
are not lawfully in the United States. We hold that the IJ and BIA properly
employed a future-oriented analysis by considering whether Ocampo’s removal
would result in an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his father and
that it was permissible to take into consideration the support that his siblings would
provide if Ocampo were removed. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D); Figueroa, 543
F.3d at 497-98; In re Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56, 63 (B.I.A. 2001) (en
banc).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --