United States Ninth Circuit

In a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming an immigration judge-s denial of petitioner's claim for cancellation of removal and denying his motion to remand, the petition is denied where 1) petitioner-s unborn daughter did not meet the statutory definition of -child- in 8 U.S.C. section 1101(b)(1) at the time of his hearing before the immigration judge, and the BIA therefore did not err in determining that the unborn child was not a qualifying relative for purposes of cancellation of removal; and 2) because petitioner did not tender any evidence showing -exceptional and extremely unusual hardship,- the BIA did not abuse its discretion in declining to enter a remand order.

Appellate Information

• Argued 03/11/2010
• Decided 05/10/2010
• Published 05/10/2010

Judges

• Before FERDINAND F. FERNANDEZ, SIDNEY R. THOMAS, and CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Martin Avila Robles, San Francisco, CA, Marie Kayal, San Francisco, CA, for the petitioner.


• For Appellees:
  
• Ronald E. LeFevre, San Francisco, CA, Virginia Lum, San Francisco, CA, Manuel Palau, Washington, DC, for the respondent.