Cadena v. Ashcroft

Ninth Circuit

Cadena v. Ashcroft

96 F. App'x 482

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 26, 2004

DocketNo. 02-70884

StatusPublished

This text of 96 F. App'x 482 (Cadena v. Ashcroft) 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

Cadena v. Ashcroft, 96 F. App'x 482 (9th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Juan Carlos Cadena, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the summary dismissal of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) of his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) to review a final order of removal.

Because Cadena’s brief to this Court does not challenge the BIA’s summary dismissal for failure to file a brief, that issue is not properly before this Court. See Fed. R.App. P. 28(a); see also Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir.1996). Rather, Cadena contends that the immigration judge erred in making the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” determination. We lack jurisdiction to review this discretionary determination. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 888 (9th Cir.2003).

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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Juan Carlos Cadena, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the summary dismissal of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) of his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) to review a final order of removal.

Because Cadena’s brief to this Court does not challenge the BIA’s summary dismissal for failure to file a brief, that issue is not properly before this Court. See Fed. R.App. P. 28(a); see also Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir.1996). Rather, Cadena contends that the immigration judge erred in making the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” determination. We lack jurisdiction to review this discretionary determination. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 888 (9th Cir.2003).

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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 F. App'x 482, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cadena-v-ashcroft-ca9-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack