FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 24 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SALVADOR SERRATOS-QUIROZ, No. 08-75082
Petitioner, Agency No. A097-764-754
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Salvador Serratos-Quiroz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his 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 deny in part and dismiss in part
the petition for review.
Our review of the record reveals no support for Serratos-Quiroz’s contention
that the IJ prejudged his cancellation claim or displayed any bias or animosity
toward him. See Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzalez, 497 F.3d 919, 925-26 (9th Cir.
2007) (acknowledging the agency’s standard for recusal set forth in Matter of
Exame, 18 I. & N. Dec. 303, 306 (BIA 1982)).
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
Serratos-Quiroz failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his
U.S. citizen children. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B); Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey,
552 F.3d 975, 979 (9th Cir. 2009).
Finally, Serratos-Quiroz’s contention–that his removal would result in the
deprivation of his children’s right to remain with their father–does not raise a
constitutional claim. See Cabrera-Alvarez v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 1006, 1012-13
(9th Cir. 2005) (explaining that agency necessarily considers effect of parent’s
removal on the interests of the child, and does not act in a manner contrary to
Congress’ intent, when evaluating and denying cancellation claim); Salvador-
Calleros v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 959, 963 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that hardship
standard does not violate due process).
2 08-75082
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 08-75082