Fregoso v. Gonzales

185 F. App'x 619

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Rodimiro Bernal Fregoso, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying his application for cancellation of removal. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo purely legal questions, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

Bernal Fregoso’s contention that the agency misinterpreted the hardship standard is without merit, because its interpretation fell within the broad range of acceptable interpretations authorized by statute. See Ramirez-Perez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir.2003).

We do not consider whether Bernal Fregoso established ten years of continuous physical presence, because his failure to establish the requisite hardship is dispositive. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1); Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 889 (9th Cir.2003) (noting that an applicant must establish continuous physical presence, good moral character and hardship to qualify for relief).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.