FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 10 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SILVIA CHAVEZ DE VELASQUEZ; et No. 08-73113
al.,
Agency Nos. A076-858-489
Petitioners, A075-301-252
A072-403-514
v. A072-403-515
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
MEMORANDUM *
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 20, 2011 **
Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Silvia Chavez De Velasquez, Gregorio Velasquez-Garcia and their two
children, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) order denying their application for cancellation of removal. Our
*
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).
jurisdiction is governed by 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). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Petitioners’ contention that the IJ violated due process by taking additional
testimony regarding hardship following the BIA’s June 19, 2008, remand order is
not persuasive because the first IJ did not adjudicate any aspect of the petitioners’
cancellation of removal claim beyond the question of moral character, and the
remand did not limit the second IJ in what he could consider on remand. See
Fernandes v. Holder, 619 F.3d 1069, 1074 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[T]he IJ’s jurisdiction
on remand from the BIA is limited only when the BIA expressly retains
jurisdiction and qualifies or limits the scope of the remand to a specific purpose.”).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that
petitioners 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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 08-73113