Olea v. Mukasey
This text of 309 F. App'x 170 (Olea 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
Israel Rios Olea, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order and denying his motion to remand. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand, Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003), and dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that Rios Olea failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rios Olea’s motion to remand to consider his wife’s eligibility for cancellation of removal based on Tapia v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 997 (9th Cir.2005), because the BIA concluded his wife was not in removal proceedings, and her ability to obtain cancellation of removal was not determinative of Rios Olea’s cancellation application.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; and DENIED in part.
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
309 F. App'x 170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/olea-v-mukasey-ca9-2009.