Arreola Andrade v. Gonzales

Ninth Circuit

Arreola Andrade v. Gonzales

146 F. App'x 194

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 18, 2005

DocketNo. 04-72836

StatusPublished

This text of 146 F. App'x 194 (Arreola Andrade 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

Arreola Andrade v. Gonzales, 146 F. App'x 194 (9th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Pedro Arreola Andrade and Lourdes Arreola, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming without opinion an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their applications for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. We dismiss the petition for review because we lack jurisdiction over the petitioners’ challenge to the denial of voluntary departure. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f) (“No court shall have jurisdiction over an appeal from denial of a request for an order of voluntary departure.... ”); Oropeza-Wong v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1135, 1141 (9th Cir.2005). We also lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary determination that the petitioners failed to establish good moral character. See Moran v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1089, 1091 (9th Cir.2005).

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

**

Pedro Arreola Andrade and Lourdes Arreola, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming without opinion an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their applications for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. We dismiss the petition for review because we lack jurisdiction over the petitioners’ challenge to the denial of voluntary departure. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f) (“No court shall have jurisdiction over an appeal from denial of a request for an order of voluntary departure.... ”); Oropeza-Wong v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1135, 1141 (9th Cir.2005). We also lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary determination that the petitioners failed to establish good moral character. See Moran v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1089, 1091 (9th Cir.2005).

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)

146 F. App'x 194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arreola-andrade-v-gonzales-ca9-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack