T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T B AR T OL O V AL E R I O- E S T R AD A; T E R E S A D I A Z B E N I T E Z ; G U I L L E R MO VA LE RI O D I AZ, P et i t i o n ers, v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 71043 A ge nc yN os . A 095- 190- 481

A 095- 190- 257 A 078- 112- 579 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r19, 2010 ** B efo re: O ’ S C A N N L A IN , T A L L M A N , an dB E A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. B art ol o V al er i o-E stra da, T er es a D i az B eni t ez , and G ui l l erm o V al er i o D i az , na t i ve s a nd c i t i z e ns of

M e xi c o, pe t i t i on f

orr e vi e w of

the B oar d of

I m m i gr a t i on A p p ea ls’ (“B IA ”) o rd erd ism issin g th eir ap p ea l fro m an im m ig ra ti o n ju d g e’s 

# FI LED OC T 25 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 71043 2 d e c is io n d e n y in g th e irap p lic a tio n s f o rc an c e lla tio n o f

r e m o v a l. O u rju r is d ic tio n is gove rne d by8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w de novo que s t i ons of l aw , i nc l udi ng w h e th e ras ta te c o n v ic tio n is ar e m o v ab le o f f e n s e . B an uelos-Ayon v. H older , 611 F . 3d 1080, 1082 ( 9th C i r . 2010) . W e de nyi n parta nd di s m i s s i n partthe pe t i t i on f o rr e v i e w. T he a ge nc yc orr e c t l yde t e rm i ne d tha tV a l e r i o- E s tr a da ’ s c r i m i na l c onvi c t i on f o rc o rp o r a l in

ju ryto h is s p o u s e r e n d e r s h im in e lig ib le f o rc an c e lla tio n o f

r e m o v a l. See 8 U .S .C . § § 1 2 2 9 b ( b ) ( 1 ) ( C ) , 1 2 2 7 a ( 2 ) ( E ) ; B anue los -Ay on , 61 1 F . 3d at10 83 (a c o n v i c t i o n u n d e rCa l i f

o rn i aPe n a l Co d e § 2 7 3 . 5 ( a ) c o n s t i tu t e s ac a t e g o r i c a l c r i me o f v io le n c e u n d e r1 8 U .S .C . § 1 6 ( a ) ) . T he a ge nc ya l s o c orr e c t l yde t e rm i ne d D i a z - B e ni t e z i s i ne l i gi bl e f or can cel l at i o n o f rem o v al b ecau se sh e cu rren t l y l ack s an y q u al i fyi n g rel at i v es. 8 U . S . C . § 1 22 9b (b)( 1)(D ). W e l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew the agency’ s det erm i nat i on thatT er es a f ai l ed to s h o w e x tr e m e h a r d s h ip to aq u a lif y in g r e la tiv e . See Mendez- Castro v. Mukasey , 55 2 F . 3d 97 5, 97 8 (9th C i r. 20 09 ). In addi t i on , w e l ac k j uri sdi ct i on ov er pe t i t i one r s ’ c ont e nt i ons tha tthe B I A f a i l e d t o c ons i de rthe e vi de nc e orthe c um ul a t i ve i m pa c tof

the i rha r ds hi p e vi de nc e be c aus e the ya r e nots upport e d bythe08- 71043 3 r e c o r da n dd o n o t a m o u n t to ac o lo r ab le c o n s titu tio n a l c la im s . Se e Me ndez - Cas tr o, 55 2 F . 3d at98 0 (9th C i r. 20 09 ). P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D E N IE D i n p art; D IS M IS S E D i n p art .