Lat v. Holder

Ninth Circuit

Lat v. Holder

376 F. App'x 720

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 19, 2010

Docket07-73464

StatusUnpublished

This text of 376 F. App'x 720 (Lat v. Holder) 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

Lat v. Holder, 376 F. App'x 720 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Robinson Galapin Lat, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order sustaining the government’s appeal from an immigration judge’s decision granting Lat cancellation of removal for legal permanent residents. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary denial of Lat’s application for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).

We also lack jurisdiction over Lat’s constitutional challenges to . 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), because in light of our precedent the claims are not colorable. See De Mercado v. Mukasey, 566 F.3d 810, 816 (9th Cir.2009); Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1152 (9th Cir.1997), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Trejo-Mejia v. Holder, 593 F.3d 913, 915 (9th Cir.2010).

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 **

Robinson Galapin Lat, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order sustaining the government’s appeal from an immigration judge’s decision granting Lat cancellation of removal for legal permanent residents. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary denial of Lat’s application for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).

We also lack jurisdiction over Lat’s constitutional challenges to . 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), because in light of our precedent the claims are not colorable. See De Mercado v. Mukasey, 566 F.3d 810, 816 (9th Cir.2009); Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1152 (9th Cir.1997), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Trejo-Mejia v. Holder, 593 F.3d 913, 915 (9th Cir.2010).

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)

376 F. App'x 720, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lat-v-holder-ca9-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack