Cortez v. Gonzales

Ninth Circuit

Cortez v. Gonzales

158 F. App'x 892

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 15, 2005

DocketNo. 04-70484; Agency No. A79-519-639

StatusPublished

This text of 158 F. App'x 892 (Cortez 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

Cortez v. Gonzales, 158 F. App'x 892 (9th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Martha Cortez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying her application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s discretionary determination that Cortez did not establish good moral character. See Moran v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1089, 1091 (9th Cir.2005) (indicating that a good moral character determination is only reviewable where it is based on one of the statutory exclusions found in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)).

To the extent Cortez challenges the IJ’s exceptional and extremely unusual hardship determination, we also lack jurisdiction. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 891 (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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Martha Cortez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying her application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s discretionary determination that Cortez did not establish good moral character. See Moran v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1089, 1091 (9th Cir.2005) (indicating that a good moral character determination is only reviewable where it is based on one of the statutory exclusions found in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)).

To the extent Cortez challenges the IJ’s exceptional and extremely unusual hardship determination, we also lack jurisdiction. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 891 (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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 F. App'x 892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cortez-v-gonzales-ca9-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack