FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 18 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOAQUIN ARTURO CABRERA- No. 10-73149
SANCHEZ,
Agency No. A073-575-615
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2012 **
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Joaquin Arturo Cabrera-Sanchez, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order denying his
motion to reopen proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
*
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).
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Iturribarria v. INS,
321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review.
Cabrera-Sanchez contends that the BIA abused its discretion in denying his
motion to reopen because he presented new evidence of the requisite hardship - a
psychologist’s report that his oldest United States citizen daughter is experiencing
psychological problems due to the removal proceedings, and evidence that the
daughter is enrolled in a gifted students educational program - to support his
application for cancellation relief. Cabrera-Sanchez further contends that the BIA
violated his due process rights by applying the wrong hardship standard.
To the extent we have jurisdiction to review the BIA's denial of the motion
to reopen, see Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 601 (9th Cir. 2006), we
conclude the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Cabrera-Sanchez's motion
to reopen based on new evidence of hardship because the BIA considered the
evidence and acted within its broad discretion in determining the evidence was
insufficient to establish prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal. See
Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (BIA's denial of a motion to
reopen shall be reversed only if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.”).
The record does not support petitioner’s contention that the BIA applied the
wrong legal standard, and petitioner’s due process claim does not amount to a
2 10-73149
colorable constitutional claim. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930
(9th Cir. 2005) (“traditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due
process violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims that would
invoke our jurisdiction.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 10-73149