Case ID: f-appx_203/html/0861-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Norma Garcia GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-71093.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 24, 2006.
    
    Filed Nov. 1, 2006.
    
      Charles E. Woode, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, Linda S. Wendtland, Esq., Donald A. Couvillon, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: KOZINSKI and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges, and CARNEY, District Judge.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Cormac J. Carney, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

1. We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s discretionary decision to deny cancellation of removal for failure to show the requisite hardship. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)®; see also Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir.2005). To the extent we can review due process challenges, see Martinez-Rosas, 424 F.3d at 930, we find no colorable constitutional violation. First, the IJ applied the proper standard. See Ramirez-Perez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 1001, 1006-07 (9th Cir.2003). Second, petitioner had notice that both the asylum and cancellation applications would be considered at the removal hearing, and did not seek a continuance to present additional evidence until the end of the hearing. It was not an abuse of discretion, and certainly not a violation of due process, for the IJ to deny the continuance at that late time.

2. We also lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of the motion to reopen because petitioner never filed a petition for review of this final order. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995); Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1257-58 (9th Cir.1996). In any event, the BIA properly denied the motion because petitioner was not entitled to another opportunity to apply for cancellation of removal.

PETITION DENIED in part and DISMISSED 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.