NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUN 02 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
ERNESTO VALDEZ ARELLANO, No. 08-70625
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-061-833
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2009 **
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Ernesto Valdez Arellano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of
removal, and denying his motion to remand. Our jurisdiction is governed by
*
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).
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations in
immigration proceedings, Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000), and
we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Valdez Arellano’s due process rights were not violated by transcription
errors and the BIA’s denial of his motion to remand. The proceedings were not “so
fundamentally unfair that [Valdez Arellano] was prevented from reasonably
presenting his case” and he had not established prejudice from the transcription
errors. Id. at 971 (citation omitted).
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
Valdez Arellano failed to establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to
a qualifying relative. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.
2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 08-70625