Jimenez v. Gonzales
232 F. App'x 714
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Jimenez v. Gonzales. Read the opinion of the Court — 158 F. App'x 7 →
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
The immigration judge properly denied cancellation of removal because petitioners lack any qualifying relatives under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2)(A). Petitioners have cited no authority for their equal protection argument, and Fiallo v. Bell1 and Ram v. INS2 foreclose it.
AFFIRMED.
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
Jimenez v. Gonzales, 232 F. App'x 714 (9th Cir. 2007).
232 F. App'x 714 (Jimenez v. Gonzales) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Fiallo Ex Rel. Rodriguez v. Bell
430 U.S. 787 (Supreme Court, 1977)
Anant Ram Sangeeta Ram Nazra Bibi Ram v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
243 F.3d 510 (Ninth Circuit, 2001)