Lule-Molina v. Mukasey

275 F. App'x 583

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 21, 2008
• Docket: No. 07-75042
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing petitioner Maria Estela Lule-Mo-lina and petitioner Jose Manuel Moncada-Hernandez’s appeal of an Immigration Judge’s order denying their applications for cancellation of removal.

We have reviewed the response to the court’s January 11, 2008 order to show cause, and we conclude that petitioner Maria Estela Lule-Molina has failed to raise a colorable constitutional or legal claim to invoke our jurisdiction over this petition for review. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926 (9th Cir.2005); Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001). Accordingly, respondent’s motion to dismiss this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction as to petitioner Maria Estela Lule-Molina is granted. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir. 2003); Montero-Martinez v. Ashcroft, 277 F.3d 1137, 1144 (9th Cir.2002).

A review of the administrative record and petitioner’s response to the court’s order to show cause demonstrates that petitioner Jose Manuel Moncada-Hernan-dez has presented no evidence that he has a qualifying relative for purposes of cancellation of removal as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D). See Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (9th Cir. 2002). The BIA therefore correctly concluded that, as a matter of law, petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal. Accordingly, the petition for review as to petitioner Jose Manuel Moncada-Hernan-dez is summarily denied. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam).

All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal and voluntary departure confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) and Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004), shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.