Case Name: Agustin HERNANDEZ-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-08
Citations: 382 F. App'x 550
Docket Number: No. 08-71646
Parties: Agustin HERNANDEZ-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 382
Pages: 550–550

Head Matter:
Agustin HERNANDEZ-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-71646.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 25, 2010.
Filed June 8, 2010.
Agustín Hernandez-Hernandez, Oxnard, CA, pro se.
OIL, Stacy Stiffel Paddack, U.S. Department of Justice, 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
Agustín Hernandez-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals' denying his second motion to reconsider the underlying denial of his application for cancellation of relief based on his failure to establish the requisite hardship to a qualifying relative. The BIA denied the motion as numerically-barred and untimely-filed.
Hernandez-Hernandez contends that the BIA erred by not finding exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his two United States citizen children. Hernandez-Hernandez also contends there is no rational basis for treating aliens differently who apply for § 212(c) relief and for cancellation relief.
Hernandez-Hernandez has not raised any challenges to the BIA's denial of his second motion to reconsider as numerically barred and untimely, and therefore he has waived any challenge to that decision. See Martinez-Serrano v. I.N.S., 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not supported by argument in a brief are deemed abandoned).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.