Case ID: f-appx_194/html/0490-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ricardo GALAVIZ-DIAZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-73274.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 24, 2006.
    
    Filed July 31, 2006.
    Jaime Jasso, Esq., California Alien Rights Project, LLC, Westlake Village, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Janice K Redfern, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ricardo Galaviz-Diaz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision 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 claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. See Sanchez-Cruz v. INS, 255 F.3d 775, 779 (9th Cir.2001). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

Petitioner’s contention that the BIA erred in finding that his children would return with him to Mexico is not supported by the record and does not amount to a colorable due process claim, as the BIA considered the possibility that petitioner’s children would remain in the United States. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005).

We are not persuaded by petitioner’s challenge to the statutory interpretation of the hardship standard as applied to children. See Ramirez-Perez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir.2003); see also Cabrera-Alvarez v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 1006, 1012-13 (9th Cir.2005).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.