LEOPOLDO ALCARRAZ-ALARCON V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 11-73933 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 14 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LEOPOLDO ALCARRAZ-ALARCON; et al., No. 11-73933 Agency Nos. A070-915-584 A078-112-865 A078-112-866 A078-112-867 Petitioners, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM * Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 10, 2012 ** Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Leopoldo Alcarraz-Alarcon, Elizabeth Alcarraz, Isabel Alcarraz and Daniel Alcarraz, natives and citizens of Peru, petition pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying their application for cancellation of * 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). removal, and upholding the immigration judge s denial of their request for a continuance. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part, and deny in part, the petition for review. Lead petitioners contend that their United States citizen daughter will experience the requisite hardship if they are forced to move to Peru, and therefore the BIA erred in denying their application for cancellation of removal. The agency applied the proper legal standard, and we lack jurisdiction to review the agency s discretionary determination that lead petitioners failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to their United States citizen child. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B); Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 979 (9th Cir. 2009). The BIA did not abuse its discretion by affirming the immigration judge s decision that Alcarraz-Alarcon lacked good cause for a continuance, where the case had been continued many times over the course of seven years, and where the new medical evidence of Elizabeth Alcarraz s latest medical evaluation would not have significantly added to the hardship evidence. See Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part, DENIED in part. 2 11-73933
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.
