Sandoval-Cantu, et al v. Holder, No. 07-70729 (9th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OCT 22 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS ISRAEL SANDOVAL-CANTU and DELIA BELTRAN-CHAMU, No. 07-70729 Agency Nos. A075-763-506 A075-763-507 Petitioners, v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 19, 2010 ** San Francisco, California Before: O SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN and BEA, Circuit Judges. Petitioners Israel Sandoval-Cantu and Delia Beltran-Chamu, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge s * 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). ( IJ ) denial of their application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 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 three U.S. citizen children. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B); Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 979 (9th Cir. 2009). Because petitioners are not eligible for cancellation of removal due to insufficient hardship, we need not address their contention that they have established the requisite continuous physical presence. The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying petitioners fourth request for a continuance because petitioners did not demonstrate good cause. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; see Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1247 (9th Cir. 2008) (reviewing for abuse of discretion). Petitioners contention that the immigration judge violated their right to a fair hearing because he did not state on the record that he had reviewed and familiarized himself with the record in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 1240.1(b) does not raise a colorable due process claim. Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005). PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 2 07-70729
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.
