Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

320 F. App'x 652

Rochel v. Holder

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided March 26, 2009

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2009-03-26

Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (§ 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))

Relies on Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales · Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey

Decided 2009-03-26

¶1MEMORANDUM …

¶2Maria Guadalupe Garcia Rochel, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision dismissing her appeal of an immigration judge’s denial of her application for cancellation of removal, based on her failure to establish an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her United States citizen children and legal permanent resident father. We dismiss the petition for review.

¶3We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that petitioner failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B); Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 979 (9th Cir.2009). Petitioner’s contention that the Board failed to adequately consider and weigh all evidence of hardship does not raise a colorable due process claim. Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005).

¶4PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

¶5 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

/320/fappx/652 · .json · Public domain