Case Name: Alfredo REYES-VERASTICA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-29
Citations: 425 F. App'x 593
Docket Number: No. 09-70887
Parties: Alfredo REYES-VERASTICA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 425
Pages: 593–594

Head Matter:
Alfredo REYES-VERASTICA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-70887.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2011.
Filed March 29, 2011.
Gary Finn, Law Offices of Gary Finn, Indio, CA, for Petitioner.
Jeffery R. Leist, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, 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
Alfredo Reyes-Verastica, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the former Legalization Appeals Unit's ("LAU") order dismissing his appeal from the denial of his application for temporary resident status as a Special Agricultural Worker ("SAW"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1160(e)(3) and 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Perez-Martin v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 752, 758 (9th Cir.2005), we deny the petition for review.
The LAU did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Reyes-Verastica's SAW appeal where he provided insufficient evidence to establish that he performed qualifying agricultural work during the statutory time period. See id. at 759-60 (to overcome derogatory government evidence, SAW applicant must provide sufficient 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.