Martinez-Herrera, et al v. Holder, No. 07-72358 (9th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 17 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EDUARDO MARTINEZ-HERRERA, Petitioner, No. 07-72358 Agency No. A029-192-223 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted November 2, 2010 San Francisco, California Before: PAEZ and BEA, Circuit Judges, and DUFFY, Senior District Judge.** Petitioner Eduardo Martinez-Herrera ( Petitioner ), a native and citizen of Guatemala who entered the United States without inspection in 1988, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order denying Petitioner a waiver of * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Kevin Thomas Duffy, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition. We lack jurisdiction to review denial of Petitioner s request for a waiver of inadmissibility under § 1182(h). Petitioner does not raise a cognizable legal or constitutional question as to the BIA s denial of his waiver request. The BIA determined that Petitioner was statutorily eligible for § 1182(h) relief, but did not, in exercise of its discretion, grant § 1182(h) relief. There is no merit to Petitioner s contention that a finding of eligibility requires granting a waiver. § 1182(h) expressly states that the Attorney General may, in his discretion, grant a waiver to an eligible petitioner. Here, the BIA properly considered Petitioner s lack of rehabilitation as one of many factors in determining that relief was not warranted. Because whether to grant § 1182(h) relief is a discretionary decision, we lack jurisdiction to review the agency s decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Mejia v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 991, 999 (9th Cir. 2007). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
