Oscar Meza-Corrales v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OSCAR MEZA-CORRALES,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-70418
Agency No. A091-993-887
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2014**
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Oscar Meza-Corrales, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from
the decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying his application for cancellation
of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing de novo
FILED
MAY 29 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

questions of law, Brezilien v. Holder, 569 F.3d 403, 411 (9th Cir. 2009), we deny
the petition for review.
The IJ applied the correct hardship standard to Meza-Corrales’s cancellation
application. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir. 2009)
(concluding that “the IJ applied the correct legal standard” in a case where “the IJ
expressly cited and applied [relevant case law] in rendering its decision, which is
all our review requires”).
The BIA did not engage in impermissible factfinding or violate Meza-
Corrales’s right to due process when it reviewed the IJ’s hardship determination,
because the BIA properly reviewed de novo the IJ’s application of the hardship
standard to the undisputed facts of the case. See Brezilien, 569 F.3d at 412 n.3
(“The Board may review questions of law, discretion, and judgment on all other
issues in appeals from decisions of immigration judges de novo.” (citation
omitted)); see also Perez-Palafox v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1138, 1146 (9th Cir. 2014)
(concluding that the BIA did not engage in impermissible factfinding).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
10-70418 2

-- 2 of 2 --