Nicolas Cruz-Villagomez v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

Ninth Circuit

Nicolas Cruz-Villagomez v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

393 F. App'x 523

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 30, 2010

Docket08-71184

StatusUnpublished

This text of 393 F. App'x 523 (Nicolas Cruz-Villagomez v. Eric H. 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

Nicolas Cruz-Villagomez v. Eric H. Holder Jr., 393 F. App'x 523 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Nicolas Cruz-Villagomez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal, and the former Legalization Appeals Unit’s (“LAU”) 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-Villagomez’s SAW appeal where Cruz-Villagomez failed to provide the kind of evidence of qualifying employment sufficient to rebut the government’s derogatory evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1160(b)(3)(B)(iii) (an applicant must provide sufficient evidence to show qualifying *525 employment “as a matter of just and reasonable inference”); see also Perez-Martin, 394 F.3d at 759 (considering hearsay statements recorded in a government report). 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). We need not consider whether the LAU erred by questioning the validity of the signature on the employer affidavit provided by Cruz-Villagomez.

In his opening brief, Cruz-Villagomez fails to address, and therefore has waived any challenge to, the agency’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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

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

MEMORANDUM **

Nicolas Cruz-Villagomez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal, and the former Legalization Appeals Unit’s (“LAU”) 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-Villagomez’s SAW appeal where Cruz-Villagomez failed to provide the kind of evidence of qualifying employment sufficient to rebut the government’s derogatory evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1160(b)(3)(B)(iii) (an applicant must provide sufficient evidence to show qualifying *525 employment “as a matter of just and reasonable inference”); see also Perez-Martin, 394 F.3d at 759 (considering hearsay statements recorded in a government report). 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). We need not consider whether the LAU erred by questioning the validity of the signature on the employer affidavit provided by Cruz-Villagomez.

In his opening brief, Cruz-Villagomez fails to address, and therefore has waived any challenge to, the agency’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

393 F. App'x 523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nicolas-cruz-villagomez-v-eric-h-holder-jr-ca9-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack