Lopez Ramos v. Gonzales

Ninth Circuit

Lopez Ramos v. Gonzales

143 F. App'x 838

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 15, 2005

DocketNo. 04-71673; Agency Nos. A77-205-907, A95-305-136, A95-305-137, A95-305-138

StatusPublished

This text of 143 F. App'x 838 (Lopez Ramos 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

Lopez Ramos v. Gonzales, 143 F. App'x 838 (9th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Elíseo Lopez Ramos, his wife, Lilia Olan Garcia, and their two children, Fabian Lopez Olan and Viani Lopez Olan, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming, without opinion, an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their applications for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo the agency’s legal determination that petitioners are statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. See Montero-Martinez v. Ashcroft, 277 F.3d 1137, 1144-45 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition for review.

The IJ properly denied petitioners’ applications for cancellation of removal because they conceded that they did not have a qualifying relative. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D) (requiring a showing of “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien’s spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent resi[839]*839dence”); see also Montero-Martinez, 277 F.3d at 1144-45.

Petitioners’ remaining contentions lack merit.

The voluntary departure period was stayed, and that stay will expire upon issuance of the mandate. See Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

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

**

Elíseo Lopez Ramos, his wife, Lilia Olan Garcia, and their two children, Fabian Lopez Olan and Viani Lopez Olan, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming, without opinion, an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their applications for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo the agency’s legal determination that petitioners are statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. See Montero-Martinez v. Ashcroft, 277 F.3d 1137, 1144-45 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition for review.

The IJ properly denied petitioners’ applications for cancellation of removal because they conceded that they did not have a qualifying relative. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D) (requiring a showing of “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien’s spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent resi[839]*839dence”); see also Montero-Martinez, 277 F.3d at 1144-45.

Petitioners’ remaining contentions lack merit.

The voluntary departure period was stayed, and that stay will expire upon issuance of the mandate. See Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

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)

143 F. App'x 838, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lopez-ramos-v-gonzales-ca9-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack