Case Name: Ernesto VALDEZ ARELLANO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-02
Citations: 381 F. App'x 662
Docket Number: No. 08-70625
Parties: Ernesto VALDEZ ARELLANO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 381
Pages: 662–663

Head Matter:
Ernesto VALDEZ ARELLANO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-70625.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 25, 2009.
Filed June 2, 2010.
Ernesto Valdez Arellano, Long Beach, CA, pro se.
Stacy Stiffel Paddack, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ernesto Valdez Arellano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for cancellation of removal, and denying his motion to remand. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings, Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Valdez Arellano's due process rights were not violated by transcription errors and the BIA's denial of his motion to remand. The proceedings were not "so fundamentally unfair that [Valdez Arellano] was prevented from reasonably presenting his case" and he had not established prejudice from the transcription errors. Id. at 971 (citation omitted).
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's discretionary determination that Valdez Arellano failed to establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See Romero-Tonres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.