Medel v. Mukasey
This text of 271 F. App'x 683 (Medel v. Mukasey) 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.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Victor Graciano Medel, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review [684]*684of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying his motion to reopen and reconsider the underlying denial of petitioner’s application for cancellation of removal based on his failure to establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his United States citizen child.
The evidence petitioner presented with his motion to reopen concerned the same hardship grounds as his underlying application for cancellation of removal. We therefore lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that petitioner failed to establish the requisite hardship. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 600-03 (9th Cir.2006).
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
271 F. App'x 683, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/medel-v-mukasey-ca9-2008.