
    Nicolas CRUZ-VILLAGOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-71184.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Aug. 10, 2010.
    
    Filed Aug. 30, 2010.
    John E. Ricci, Esquire, Law Office of Ricci & Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Paul Fiorino, Trial, Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, DOJ-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: O’SCANNLAIN, HAWKINS, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Nicolas Cruz-Villagomez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal, and the former Legalization Appeals Unit’s (“LAU”) order dismissing his appeal from the denial of his Special Agricultural Worker (“SAW”) application. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1160(e)(3) and 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a SAW application, Perez-Martin v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 752, 758 (9th Cir.2005), and review de novo due process claims, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

The LAU did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Cruz-Villagomez’s SAW appeal where Cruz-Villagomez failed to provide the kind of evidence of qualifying employment sufficient to rebut the government’s derogatory evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1160(b)(3)(B)(iii) (an applicant must provide sufficient evidence to show qualifying employment “as a matter of just and reasonable inference”); see also Perez-Martin, 394 F.3d at 759 (considering hearsay statements recorded in a government report). It follows that the LAU did not violate due process. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for' a due process violation). We need not consider whether the LAU erred by questioning the validity of the signature on the employer affidavit provided by Cruz-Villagomez.

In his opening brief, Cruz-Villagomez fails to address, and therefore has waived any challenge to, the agency’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996).

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.
     