Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Carlos Gustavo Claros Rodriguez v. Eric H. Holder

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT


January 18, 2011

CARLOS GUSTAVO CLAROS RODRIGUEZ, PETITIONER,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL, RESPONDENT.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A072-528-564

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

MEMORANDUM*fn1

Submitted January 10, 2011*fn2

Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Carlos Gustavo Claros Rodriguez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his applications for special rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan

Adjustment and Central American Relief Act ("NACARA"), and for non-lawful permanent resident cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process claims. Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir. 2003). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's determination that Claros Rodriguez did not establish eligibility for NACARA relief, as that finding is based on disputed facts. See Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, § 309(c)(5)(C)(ii); cf. Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 857 (9th Cir. 2009).

We also lack jurisdiction to review the agency's determination that Claros Rodriguez failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005).

Claros Rodriguez's contentions that the IJ disregarded his evidence of hardship and did not consider the evidence in the aggregate are not supported by the record and do not amount to colorable constitutional claims. See Martinez-Rosas, 424 F.3d at 930.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.