Case ID: f-appx_366/html/0825-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jose Antonio RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-70446.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Feb. 24, 2010.
    Frank P. Sprouls, Esquire, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Todd J. Cochran, OIL, Mary Jane Can-daux, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Le-Fevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    
      Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Antonio Rodriguez, 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 order dismissing his appeal from the denial of his Special Agricultural Worker (“SAW”) application under 8 U.S.C. § 1160. We have jurisdiction to review the denial of a SAW application pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1160(e)(3). We review de novo questions of law and claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings. Ituribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

Rodriguez’s due process challenge based on his contention that he never received the Notice of Intent to Deny and Notice of Decision fails because he does not establish prejudice. See Kohli v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir.2007) (requiring a showing of prejudice where a procedural defect is alleged); see also Perez-Martin v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 752, 759-60 (9th Cir. 2005) (to overcome derogatory government evidence, an applicant must provide enough evidence to show qualifying employment “as a matter of just and reasonable inference”) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1160(b)(3)(B)(iii)).

In his opening brief, Rodriguez 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.