FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 06 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CESAR JERONIMO GOMEZ, No. 10-71486
Petitioner, Agency No. A071-579-210
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 24, 2011 **
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Cesar Jeronimo Gomez, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for a waiver of
inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h) and for adjustment of status. 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 questions of law,
including due process claims, Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 921
(9th Cir. 2007), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The IJ did not use an incorrect legal standard in concluding that Gomez’s
conviction under California Penal Code § 245(a)(1) constituted a “violent or
dangerous crime” requiring him to meet a heightened hardship standard. See
8 C.F.R. § 1212.7(d); Tokatly v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 613, 621 (9th Cir. 2004) (the
agency may “look to probative evidence outside the record of conviction in
inquiring as to the circumstances surrounding the commission of a crime in order
to determine whether a favorable exercise of discretion is warranted”) (alterations
and citation omitted). We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s discretionary
determination that Gomez’s conviction constituted a violent or dangerous crime.
Mejia v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 991, 999 (9th Cir. 2007).
Gomez’s contention that the IJ violated due process by considering
impermissible factors and by disregarding some of his hardship evidence is not
supported by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 10-71486