PEDRO PEREZ HIGUEROA V. ERIC H. HOLDER JR., No. 08-72624 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 14 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PEDRO MANUEL PEREZ HIGUEROA; et al., No. 08-72624 Agency Nos. A095-446-753 A095-446-754 A095-446-755 Petitioners, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM * Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 9, 2012 ** Pasadena, California Before: D.W. NELSON, O SCANNLAIN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Pedro Manuel Perez-Higuera, Iliana Rosario Perez, and their son Cristian Omar Perez-Gaxiola, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing their appeal from an immigration * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). judge s decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations in removal proceedings, Cruz Rendon v. Holder, 603 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review. Petitioners contend they were deprived of a full and fair hearing because the immigration judge exhibited bias and hostility toward their counsel. Petitioners, however, have failed to establish that the exchanges between the immigration judge and counsel prevented them from reasonably presenting their case or introducing testimony. See Cinapian v. Holder, 567 F.3d 1067, 1074 (9th Cir. 2009); Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 926-27 (9th Cir. 2007). In addition, Petitioners have failed to demonstrate prejudice. Hassan v. INS, 927 F.2d 465, 469 (9th Cir. 1991). 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.