Case Name: Francisco TORRES-SALAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-07
Citations: 348 F. App'x 248
Docket Number: No. 06-75830
Parties: Francisco TORRES-SALAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 348
Pages: 248–249

Head Matter:
Francisco TORRES-SALAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-75830.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 14, 2009.
Filed Oct. 7, 2009.
Gary Finn, Esquire, Law Offices of Gary Finn, Indio, CA, for Petitioner.
James A. Hunolt, Esquire, Regan Hildebrand, Jennifer L. Lightbody, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Francisco Torres-Salas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the former Legalization Appeals Unit's ("LAU") order dismissing Torres-Salas' appeal from the denial of his Special Agricultural Worker ("SAW") application. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 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 we deny the petition for review.
The LAU did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Torres-Salas' SAW appeal where Torres-Salas provided insufficient evidence of qualifying employment. 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)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.