Cabello v. Gonzales

Ninth Circuit

Cabello v. Gonzales

227 F. App'x 717

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 20, 2007

DocketNo. 05-75244

StatusPublished

This text of 227 F. App'x 717 (Cabello 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

Cabello v. Gonzales, 227 F. App'x 717 (9th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Alfredo Zavala Cabello seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) upholding an immigration judge’s order denying his application for cancellation of removal. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings, see Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that Zavala Cabello failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003).

Zavala Cabello contends that his attorney and the IJ precluded his daughter from testifying at the hearing. The record does not support this contention. In any [718]*718event, Zavala Cabello failed to demonstrate that additional testimony would have affected the outcome of the proceedings. See Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 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

**

Alfredo Zavala Cabello seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) upholding an immigration judge’s order denying his application for cancellation of removal. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings, see Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that Zavala Cabello failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003).

Zavala Cabello contends that his attorney and the IJ precluded his daughter from testifying at the hearing. The record does not support this contention. In any [718]*718event, Zavala Cabello failed to demonstrate that additional testimony would have affected the outcome of the proceedings. See Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 F. App'x 717, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cabello-v-gonzales-ca9-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack