Magana v. Gonzales

Ninth Circuit

Magana v. Gonzales

195 F. App'x 623

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 1, 2006

DocketNo. 05-70915

StatusPublished

This text of 195 F. App'x 623 (Magana 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

Magana v. Gonzales, 195 F. App'x 623 (9th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Guillermina Valencia Magana, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We dismiss the petition for review.

The evidence Valencia Magana presented with her motion to reopen concerned the same basic hardship grounds as her application for cancellation of removal. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 489 F.3d 592, 602-03 (9th Cir.2006). We therefore lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that the evidence was insufficient to establish a prima facie case of hardship. See id. at 601 (holding that if “the BIA determines that a motion to reopen proceedings in which there has already been an unreviewable discretionary determination concerning a statutory prerequisite to relief does not make out a prima facie case for that relief,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(I) bars this court from revisiting the merits). Moreover, to the extent the challenge is framed in constitutional terms, it fails because it is not colorable. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

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

**

Guillermina Valencia Magana, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We dismiss the petition for review.

The evidence Valencia Magana presented with her motion to reopen concerned the same basic hardship grounds as her application for cancellation of removal. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 489 F.3d 592, 602-03 (9th Cir.2006). We therefore lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that the evidence was insufficient to establish a prima facie case of hardship. See id. at 601 (holding that if “the BIA determines that a motion to reopen proceedings in which there has already been an unreviewable discretionary determination concerning a statutory prerequisite to relief does not make out a prima facie case for that relief,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(I) bars this court from revisiting the merits). Moreover, to the extent the challenge is framed in constitutional terms, it fails because it is not colorable. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

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)

195 F. App'x 623, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/magana-v-gonzales-ca9-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack