Bartolo Valerio-Estrada, et al v. Eric H. Holder Jr., No. 08-71043 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 25 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BARTOLO VALERIO-ESTRADA; TERESA DIAZ BENITEZ; GUILLERMO VALERIO DIAZ, Petitioners, No. 08-71043 Agency Nos. A095-190-481 A095-190-257 A078-112-579 MEMORANDUM * v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 19, 2010 ** Before: O SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges. Bartolo Valerio-Estrada, Teresa Diaz Benitez, and Guillermo Valerio Diaz, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) 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). decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, including whether a state conviction is a removable offense. Banuelos-Ayon v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1080, 1082 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The agency correctly determined that Valerio-Estrada s criminal conviction for corporal injury to his spouse renders him ineligible for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(b)(1)(C), 1227a(2)(E); Banuelos-Ayon, 611 F.3d at 1083 (a conviction under California Penal Code § 273.5(a) constitutes a categorical crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16(a)). The agency also correctly determined Diaz-Benitez is ineligible for cancellation of removal because she currently lacks any qualifying relatives. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). We lack jurisdiction to review the agency s determination that Teresa failed to show extreme hardship to a qualifying relative. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir. 2009). In addition, we lack jurisdiction over petitioners contentions that the BIA failed to consider the evidence or the cumulative impact of their hardship evidence because they are not supported by the 2 08-71043 record and do not amount to a colorable constitutional claims. See Mendez-Castro, 552 F.3d at 980 (9th Cir. 2009). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 3 08-71043

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.