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 yf i nds thi s c a s e s ui t abl e f

orde c i s i on w i thout ** o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). I H / R es ear ch 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 CE SAR M ARTIN CORTE S P I M ENTE L; AU DA L I A P AT I NO , 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. 05- 70633 A ge nc yN os . A 075- 647- 237

A 075- 653- 157 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 N ove m be r17, 2009 ** B efo re: A L A R C Ó N , T R O T T , an dT A S H IM A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C e s a rM a rt i n C ort e s P i m e nt e l a nd A uda l i aP a t i no, hus band and w i f e a nd 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 pr o s e f orr e vi e w of

the B oar d of Im m ig ra ti o n A p p ea ls’ 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 DE C 07 2009 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSI H / Res ea r ch 05- 70633 2 ( “ I J ” ) de c i s i on de ny i ng the i rappl i c a t i on f orc anc e l l a t i on of

r e m ova l . O ur j ur i s di c t i on i s gove rne d by8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w de novo c l a i m s of due p r o c e s s v io la tio n s in im m ig r a tio n p r o c e e d in g s , Sa n c h ez - Cr u zv . I NS , 255 F . 3d 775, 7 7 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) , a n dw e d is m is s in p art an dd e n yin p art th e p e titio n f o rr e v ie w . W e l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew the IJ ’ s di sc re t i on ary det erm i nat i on that pe t i t i one r s f

a i l e d t o s how e xc e pt i ona l a nd e xtr e m e l yunus ua l ha r ds hi p t o a qu al i fy i ng re l at i ve. Se e R o m e r o - T o rr es v . A s h c r o

ft , 32 7 F . 3d 88 7, 89 0 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 3 ) . P et i t i on er s c on t end thatthe IJvi ol at ed du e proces s by denyi ng them an o p p o rtu n ityto f

u llyp r e s e n t th e irc a s e b e f o r e af a ira n dn e u tr a l ju d g e . C o n tr aryto pet i t i on er s’ cont ent i on , the proceedi ng s w er e not“ so fund am ent al l y unfai r that [they w er e] prevent ed fr om re as on abl y pre se nt i ng [thei r] ca se . ” Co lm e n a rv . I NS , 21 0 F . 3d 96 7, 97 1 (9th C i r. 20 00 ) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed). M oreover, pet i t i on er s f ai l ed t o de m ons tr a t e tha ta ddi t i ona l e vi de nc e ort e s t i m onym ayha ve a f f e c t e d the o u tc o m e o f

th e p r o c e e d in g s . Se e id . ( r e qui r i ng pr e j udi c e t o pr e va i l on adue proces s c hal l enge). P e t i t i one r s ’ c ont e nt i on tha tthe a ge nc yvi ol a t e d the i rdue pr oc e s s r i ght s by di s r e ga r di ng the i re vi de nc e of ha r ds hi p i s nots upport e d bythe r e c or d and doe s not 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 . See M art i nez-R osas v. G on zales , 424I H / Res ea r ch 05- 70633 3 F .3 d9 2 6 , 9 3 0 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . T h e I J ’s in te rp r e ta tio n o f th e h ar d s h ip s tan d ar df a lls w i thi n the broad range autho ri ze d b y the st atut e. Se e R a m ir ez - P e r ezv . A s h c r o ft , 3 3 6 F .3 d1 0 0 1 , 1 0 0 4 - 0 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D IS M IS S E D i n p art; D E N IE D i n p art.