Opinion
No. 11-73933 Agency No. A070-915-584 Agency No. A078-112-865 Agency No. A078-112-866 Agency No. A078-112-867
09-14-2012
LEOPOLDO ALCARRAZ-ALARCON; et al., Petitioners, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
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 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.