OSCAR MEZA-CORRALES V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 10-70418 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 29 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OSCAR MEZA-CORRALES, Petitioner, No. 10-70418 Agency No. A091-993-887 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 13, 2014** Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Oscar Meza-Corrales, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) dismissing his appeal from the decision of an immigration judge ( IJ ) denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing de novo * 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). questions of law, Brezilien v. Holder, 569 F.3d 403, 411 (9th Cir. 2009), we deny the petition for review. The IJ applied the correct hardship standard to Meza-Corrales s cancellation application. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that the IJ applied the correct legal standard in a case where the IJ expressly cited and applied [relevant case law] in rendering its decision, which is all our review requires ). The BIA did not engage in impermissible factfinding or violate MezaCorrales s right to due process when it reviewed the IJ s hardship determination, because the BIA properly reviewed de novo the IJ s application of the hardship standard to the undisputed facts of the case. See Brezilien, 569 F.3d at 412 n.3 ( The Board may review questions of law, discretion, and judgment on all other issues in appeals from decisions of immigration judges de novo. (citation omitted)); see also Perez-Palafox v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1138, 1146 (9th Cir. 2014) (concluding that the BIA did not engage in impermissible factfinding). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 10-70418

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.