Case ID: f-appx_393/html/0510-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Arturo CRUZ-SOLANO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-70786.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 10, 2010.
    
    Filed Aug. 30, 2010.
    Jan Joseph Bejar, Esquire, Law Offices of Jan Joseph Bejar A Professional Law Corporation, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    Drew Brinkman, OIL, Susan Houser, Carl Henry Mcintyre, Jr., Assistant Director, 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, HAWKINS, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Arturo Cruz-Solano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the former Legalization Appeals Unit’s (“LAU”) order dismissing his appeal from the denial of his Special Agricultural Worker (“SAW”) application. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1160(e)(3) and 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a SAW application, Perez-Martin v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 752, 758 (9th Cir.2005), and review de novo due process claims, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

The LAU did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Cruz-Solano’s SAW appeal where Cruz-Solano provided insufficient evidence to establish as a matter of just and reasonable inference that his work for Ukegawa Brothers, Inc. occurred during the statutory time period. See Perez-Martin, 394 F.3d at 759-60 (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)). It follows that the LAU did not violate due process. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a due process violation).

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