FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 07 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN MIGUEL ALCARAZ- No. 05-76692
MARTINEZ,
Agency No. A035-476-149
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009 **
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Juan Miguel Alcaraz-Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order and denying his application for a
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
IH/Research
§ 212(c) waiver of inadmissability. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. §
1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration
proceedings, Sanchez-Cruz v. INS, 255 F.3d 775, 779 (9th Cir. 2001), and we
dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary denial of Alcaraz-
Martinez’s application for a § 212(c) waiver of inadmissability. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(B); Palma-Rojas v. INS, 244 F.3d 1191, 1192 (9th Cir. 2001) (per
curiam).
Alcaraz-Martinez’s contention that the BIA violated his due process rights
by disregarding his evidence of hardship and misapplying the law to the facts of
his case is not supported by the record and does not amount to a colorable due
process claim. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005).
Contrary to Alcaraz-Martinez’s contention, the BIA did not engage in
impermissible fact-finding in the course of deciding his appeal. Cf. Brezilien v.
Holder, 565 F.3d 1163, 1171 (9th Cir. 2009). The BIA was not required to defer to
the IJ’s determination that Alcaraz-Martinez warranted a grant of § 212(c) relief as
a matter of discretion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii) (“The Board may review
questions of . . . discretion . . de novo.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
IH/Research 2 05-76692