Refugio Payan-Morales v. Eric H. Holder Jr., No. 08-72898 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 30 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT REFUGIO PAYAN-MORALES, Petitioner, No. 08-72898 Agency No. A095-183-484 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. Refugio Payan-Morales, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order sustaining the government s appeal from an immigration judge s ( IJ ) decision granting 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 questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Contrary to Payan-Morales contention, the BIA used the proper standard in its hardship determination. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii); see also Figueroa v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 487, 497-98 (9th Cir. 2008) (agency must conduct a futureoriented analysis in determining whether removal would result in an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the citizen-children ) (emphasis in the original). We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA s discretionary determination that Payan-Morales failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 08-72898

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.