Castillo v. Gonzales

Ninth Circuit

Castillo v. Gonzales

222 F. App'x 622

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 26, 2007

DocketNo. 06-72040

StatusPublished

This text of 222 F. App'x 622 (Castillo 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

Castillo v. Gonzales, 222 F. App'x 622 (9th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Isaac Lara Castillo and Margarita Martinez Aquilar, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming an immigration judge’s denial of [623]*623their application for cancellation of removal. Because we lack jurisdiction, we dismiss.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Lara Castillo and Martinez Aquilar’s challenge to the agency’s discretionary determination that they failed to demonstrate exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to their qualifying relatives. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir. 2005). Moreover, Lara Castillo and Martinez Aquilar have failed to raise a color-able constitutional or legal claim to invoke our jurisdiction over this petition for review. See Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

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

**

Isaac Lara Castillo and Margarita Martinez Aquilar, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming an immigration judge’s denial of [623]*623their application for cancellation of removal. Because we lack jurisdiction, we dismiss.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Lara Castillo and Martinez Aquilar’s challenge to the agency’s discretionary determination that they failed to demonstrate exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to their qualifying relatives. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir. 2005). Moreover, Lara Castillo and Martinez Aquilar have failed to raise a color-able constitutional or legal claim to invoke our jurisdiction over this petition for review. See Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

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)

222 F. App'x 622, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/castillo-v-gonzales-ca9-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack