Acosta v. Gonzales

Ninth Circuit

Acosta v. Gonzales

155 F. App'x 285

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedNovember 21, 2005

DocketNo. 04-74382; Agency Nos. A78-642-565, A78-642-566

StatusPublished

This text of 155 F. App'x 285 (Acosta v. Gonzales) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Acosta v. Gonzales, 155 F. App'x 285 (9th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Jose de Jesus Ramirez Acosta, a native and citizen of Mexico, and his wife, Maria Magdalena Bueno de Ramirez, also a native and citizen of Mexico, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“LJ”) denial of [286]*286their applications for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider the petitioners’ sole contention that the BIA’s statutory interpretation of section 240A of the Immigration and Nationalization Act violates Congressional intent because this issue was never raised before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (no jurisdiction over legal claims not presented to the BIA).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

Jose de Jesus Ramirez Acosta, a native and citizen of Mexico, and his wife, Maria Magdalena Bueno de Ramirez, also a native and citizen of Mexico, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“LJ”) denial of [286]*286their applications for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider the petitioners’ sole contention that the BIA’s statutory interpretation of section 240A of the Immigration and Nationalization Act violates Congressional intent because this issue was never raised before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (no jurisdiction over legal claims not presented to the BIA).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 F. App'x 285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/acosta-v-gonzales-ca9-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack