Ramos Cepeda v. Gonzales

176 F. App'x 909
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided July 3, 2006·No. No. 05-76556·Published

Opinions

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

We have reviewed the opposition to the motion to dismiss this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction, and we conclude that petitioner has failed to raise a color-able constitutional claim to invoke our jurisdiction over this petition for review. See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845 (9th Cir.2003); Ramirez-Perez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir.2003). Accordingly, respondent’s motion to dismiss this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction 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).

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.

DISMISSED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ramos Cepeda v. Gonzales, 176 F. App'x 909 (9th Cir. 2006).

176 F. App'x 909 (Ramos Cepeda v. Gonzales) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related