Case ID: f-appx_540/html/0664-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

XUE JUN ZHOU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-72502.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 24, 2013.
    
    Filed Sept. 26, 2013.
    Robert Bradford Jobe, Esquire, Law Offices of Robert B. Jobe, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Carmel Aileen Morgan, Esquire, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    
      Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Xue Jun Zhou, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and constitutional claims, Vilchez v. Holder, 682 F.3d 1195, 1198 (9th Cir.2012), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not err in declining to separately evaluate the hardship Zhou’s United States citizen son would experience if the son returned to China with Zhou, where there was insufficient evidence that Zhou’s son would accompany him. See Perez v. INS, 96 F.3d 390, 393 (9th Cir.1996) (requiring evidence to support an otherwise speculative hardship scenario); cf. Salcido-Salcido v. INS, 138 F.3d 1292, 1293 (9th Cir.1998) (per curiam). Zhou’s argument that the BIA failed to consider financial hardship is not supported by the record. It follows that Zhou’s due process claim fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error and substantial prejudice for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).

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