Jose Soria Barriga v. Eric Holder, Jr.

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJune 22, 2011
Docket09-73871
StatusUnpublished

This text of Jose Soria Barriga v. Eric Holder, Jr. (Jose Soria Barriga v. Eric Holder, Jr.) 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
Jose Soria Barriga v. Eric Holder, Jr., (9th Cir. 2011).

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 22 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE ANTONIO SORIA BARRIGA, No. 09-73871

Petitioner, Agency No. A097-867-722

v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 15, 2011 **

Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Jose Antonio Soria Barriga, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal. Our

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law,

* 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). including claims of due process violations. Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d

1105, 1107 (9th Cir. 2003). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for

review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that

Soria Barriga did not demonstrate “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to

a qualifying relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.

2005). Because the hardship issue is dispositive, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D),

we do not reach Soria Barriga’s contentions regarding his continuous physical

presence.

Soria Barriga’s equal protection contention regarding the rights of his United

States citizen children is not colorable. See Urbano de Malaluan v. INS, 577 F.2d

589, 594 (9th Cir. 1978). Soria Barriga’s due process claims are not persuasive.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

2 09-73871

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jose Soria Barriga v. Eric Holder, Jr., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jose-soria-barriga-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2011.