Perez-Valencia

Perez-Valencia v. Holder

Good Law
351 F. App'x 183
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 27, 2009Nos. 05-74042, 07-72584California460 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Martin Perez-Valencia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of his motions to reopen. We grant in part and dismiss in part.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s exercise of its discretion in determining requests for cancellation of removal based upon hardship. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(b)(1)(D), 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir.2009); Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 888, 892 (9th Cir.2003). By the same token, we lack jurisdiction to review denial of Perez’s first motion, which sought reopening based on additional evidence of hardship. That evidence, the BIA determined, still failed to meet the hardship requirement. See Fernandez v. *185 Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 601, 603 (9th Cir. 2006).

We do have jurisdiction, however, to consider Perez’s second motion to reopen based upon his claim that he had constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel. See Torres-Chavez v. Holder, 567 F.3d 1096, 1100-01 (9th Cir.2009). We do not agree with the BIA that Perez presented no evidence that his counsel was inadequate. In fact, he presented substantial evidence to that…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.