Case ID: f-appx_400/html/0263-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Federico Ocampo RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-73621.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 22, 2010.
    Susan Elizabeth Hill, Hill, Piibe & Ville-gas, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Oil, Kevin James Conway, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre,' Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    
      Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Federico Ocampo Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for cancellation of removal and motion for continuance. After the Board reversed the IJ’s initial grant of cancellation relief and remanded for further proceedings, the IJ held a hearing and considered further evidence supporting Ramirez’s application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that Ramirez failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his United States citizen child. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B); Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 979 (9th Cir.2009). Likewise, we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of Ramirez’s motion to reopen based on further evidence of hardship introduced at the IJ hearing on remand. Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 600 (9th Cir.2006) (explaining that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars jurisdiction when question presented in motion to reopen is essentially the same hardship ground originally decided).

The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying Ramirez’s motion for a continuance because Ramirez did not demonstrate good cause. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; see Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1247 (9th Cir.2008) (reviewing for abuse of discretion).

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