JUAN MELENDEZ-URQUIZA V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 09-72066 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 21 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUAN FRANCISCO MELENDEZURQUIZA, No. 09-72066 Agency No. A096-229-367 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 19, 2012** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. Juan Francisco Melendez-Urquiza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 * 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). U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations and questions of law, Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for review. Contrary to Melendez-Urquiza s contention, the agency s interpretation of the hardship standard for cancellation of removal falls within the broad range authorized by the statute. See Ramirez-Perez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 1001, 1004-06 (9th Cir. 2003). It follows that his due process claim fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (an alien must show error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim). We reject Melendez-Urquiza s equal protection challenge. See Dillingham v. INS, 267 F.3d 996, 1007 (9th Cir. 2001) ( In order to succeed on his [equal protection] challenge, the petitioner must establish that his treatment differed from that of similarly situated persons. ), overruled on other grounds by Nunez-Reyes v. Holder, 646 F.3d 684 (9th Cir. 2011). Melendez-Urquiza s contention that the Attorney General exceeded his authority in promulgating 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(i) is now foreclosed by GarfiasRodriguez v. Holder, No. 09-72603, 2012 WL 5077137, at *16-20 (9th Cir. Oct. 2 09-72066 19, 2012) (en banc) (holding that the promulgation of 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(i) was a proper exercise of the Attorney General s authority). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 09-72066