Cruz-Solano v. Holder

Ninth Circuit

Cruz-Solano v. Holder

393 F. App'x 510

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 30, 2010

Docket08-70786

StatusUnpublished

This text of 393 F. App'x 510 (Cruz-Solano v. Holder) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cruz-Solano v. Holder, 393 F. App'x 510 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Arturo Cruz-Solano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the former Legalization Appeals Unit’s (“LAU”) *511 order dismissing his appeal from the denial of his Special Agricultural Worker (“SAW”) application. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1160(e)(3) and 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a SAW application, Perez-Martin v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 752, 758 (9th Cir.2005), and review de novo due process claims, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

The LAU did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Cruz-Solano’s SAW appeal where Cruz-Solano provided insufficient evidence to establish as a matter of just and reasonable inference that his work for Ukegawa Brothers, Inc. occurred during the statutory time period. See Perez-Martin, 394 F.3d at 759-60 (to overcome derogatory government evidence, an applicant must provide enough evidence to show qualifying employment “as a matter of just and reasonable inference”) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1160(b)(3)(B)(iii)). It follows that the LAU did not violate due process. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a due process violation).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Arturo Cruz-Solano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the former Legalization Appeals Unit’s (“LAU”) *511 order dismissing his appeal from the denial of his Special Agricultural Worker (“SAW”) application. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1160(e)(3) and 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a SAW application, Perez-Martin v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 752, 758 (9th Cir.2005), and review de novo due process claims, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

The LAU did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Cruz-Solano’s SAW appeal where Cruz-Solano provided insufficient evidence to establish as a matter of just and reasonable inference that his work for Ukegawa Brothers, Inc. occurred during the statutory time period. See Perez-Martin, 394 F.3d at 759-60 (to overcome derogatory government evidence, an applicant must provide enough evidence to show qualifying employment “as a matter of just and reasonable inference”) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1160(b)(3)(B)(iii)). It follows that the LAU did not violate due process. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a due process violation).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

393 F. App'x 510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cruz-solano-v-holder-ca9-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack