Maricruz Hernandez-Ramires v. Eric H. Holder Jr., No. 08-71347 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED SEP 30 2010 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARICRUZ HERNANDEZ-RAMIRES, Petitioner, No. 08-71347 Agency No. A096-345-284 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 13, 2010 ** Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Maricruz Hernandez-Ramires, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge s ( IJ ) decision denying her application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir. 2001). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to consider Hernandez-Ramires contention that the IJ demonstrated bias because Hernandez-Ramires failed to raise it before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (generally requiring exhaustion of claims before the BIA). We lack jurisdiction to review the agency s discretionary determination that Hernandez-Ramires failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005). Hernandez-Ramires contention that the BIA s order was inadequate fails because the order contained a statement of its reasons for denying [HernandezRamires] relief adequate for us to conduct our review. See Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1430 (9th Cir. 1995). PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 2 08-71347

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.