Dimas v. Gonzales

Ninth Circuit

Dimas v. Gonzales

135 F. App'x 110

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 17, 2005

DocketNo. 04-72591

StatusPublished

This text of 135 F. App'x 110 (Dimas 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

Dimas v. Gonzales, 135 F. App'x 110 (9th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

***

Carlos Dimas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals af[111]*111firming without opinion an immigration judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal. The immigration judge determined that petitioner failed to establish the requisite exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to qualifying United States citizen relatives. Petitioner has not raised any colorable due process claims, and we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary denial of cancellation of removal. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003); Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001). The voluntary departure period is stayed pursuant to Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

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

MEMORANDUM

***

Carlos Dimas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals af[111]*111firming without opinion an immigration judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal. The immigration judge determined that petitioner failed to establish the requisite exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to qualifying United States citizen relatives. Petitioner has not raised any colorable due process claims, and we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary denial of cancellation of removal. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003); Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001). The voluntary departure period is stayed pursuant to Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 F. App'x 110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dimas-v-gonzales-ca9-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack