VICTOR CABRERA ROSAS V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 11-73014 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUN 16 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS VICTOR MANUEL CABRERA ROSAS; MARIA ESTHER CABRERA, No. 11-73014 Agency Nos. A095-295-030 Agency Nos. A095-295-031 Petitioners, v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 12, 2014** Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Victor Manuel Cabrera Rosas and Maria Esther Cabrera, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge s ( IJ ) decision denying their * 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). applications for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo constitutional claims and questions of law. Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to review the agency s discretionary determination that petitioners failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to their qualifying relatives. See id. Petitioners contention that the agency violated due process by disregarding the evaluations regarding their children s language abilities is not supported by the record and does not amount to a colorable constitutional claim that would invoke our jurisdiction. See id. (traditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims). Petitioners contention that the BIA violated due process by reviewing de novo the IJ s 2004 decision is unavailing. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii) (granting BIA authority to review de novo questions of law, discretion, and judgment). PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 2 11-73014
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.
