N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT SR EANG SEA, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 10-72139 Age n c y No. A097-868-066 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d

April 8, 2014 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SILVER

M AN, W . FLETC HER , a nd B YB EE, C irc uit Judge s. Pe titione r Sre ang Se a , a

native and c i tiz e n

of C a m bodia , pe titions for re vie w of the B o ard of Im

m igration Appe a ls’ orde r de ny ing his a pplic a tion for a sy lum

and his a pplic a tion for c anc e l l a tion of re m ova l. W e de ny the pe tition for re vie w .



# FIL E D APR 11 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).-2-

The B IA a gre e d with theIm m igration Judgetha

t Se a ha d a ba ndone d his a sy lum a pplic a tion a fte r he fa ile d to m e e t a filing de a dline . The IJ wa s we ll within he r disc re tion to pre te rm i t Se a ’ s a sy lum a pplic a tion a s ha

ving be e n a

ba ndone d unde r the se c irc um sta

nc e s. Se e 8 C .F.R . § 1003.31(c ) (“ The Im m igrat ion Judge m ay se t . . . tim e lim its for the filing of a pplic a tions a

nd re late d doc um e nts a

nd re sponse s the re to, if a

ny . If an a

pplic a tion or doc um e nt is not file d within the tim e se t by the Im m igration Judge , the opportunity to file tha

t a pplic ation or doc um e nt sha l l be de e m e d wa ive d.” ). Se c ond, Se a

argue s tha

t the IJ took a

n ove rly re stric tive inte rpre tation of

“ e x tre m e c rue lty ” in 8 U.S.C . § 1229b(b)(2)(A)(i)(I) a nd thus e rre d

in de ny i ng his a pplic a tion for c a

n c e l lation of re m ova l. The c ourt re vie ws que stions of la w a nd sta tutory inte rpre tation in im

m i gration proc e e dings de nov o . Singh v . Holde r , 638 F.3d 1196, 1202–03 (9th C i r. 2011). Se a ’ s e vide nc e tha t he wa s subje c t e d to e xtre m e c rue lty

(his wife ignoring him , going out with othe r m e n, a nd m aking hurtful c om

m e n ts) pa ints a

pic ture of m arita l m i sc onduc t a nd “ unkindne ss,” a s the IJ he l d, but not of the

“ e x tre m e c rue lty ” c onte m plate d by the sta tute for purpose s of c anc e lla

t ion of re m ova l . Se e He rnande z v . Ashc roft , 345 F.3d 824, 840 (9th C ir. 2003) (“ e xtre m e c rue lty ” is not “m e re unkindne ss” and m ust ra the r to rise to a le ve l of a n “ e xtre m e c onc e pt of dom e stic viole nc e ” in whic h a spouse e nga ge d in-3-

“ m anipula

tive ta c tic s a im e d at

e nsuring [his or her] dom i na nc e and c o ntrol” ). B y fa iling to me e t the thre shold for e xtre m e c rue lty , Se a is ine ligiblefor c anc e lla

tion of re m ova l. Lope

z-Umanzor v . Gonzale

s , 405 F.3d 1049, 1053 (9th C ir. 2005). The pe tition for re vie w is DE N IE D .