Robles v. Gonzales

Ninth Circuit

Robles v. Gonzales

156 F. App'x 8

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedNovember 16, 2005

DocketNo. 03-72218; Agency No. A70-720-050

StatusPublished

This text of 156 F. App'x 8 (Robles 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

Robles v. Gonzales, 156 F. App'x 8 (9th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Eduardo Robles, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s order denying his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

Petitioner’s contentions arise from the denial of cancellation for failure to establish the requisite hardship, and we lack jurisdiction to consider this determination. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 888 (9th Cir.2003) (‘We ... conclude that an ‘exceptional and extremely unusual hardship’ determination is a subjective, discretionary judgment that has been carved out of our appellate jurisdiction.”). 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

**

Eduardo Robles, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s order denying his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

Petitioner’s contentions arise from the denial of cancellation for failure to establish the requisite hardship, and we lack jurisdiction to consider this determination. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 888 (9th Cir.2003) (‘We ... conclude that an ‘exceptional and extremely unusual hardship’ determination is a subjective, discretionary judgment that has been carved out of our appellate jurisdiction.”). 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)

156 F. App'x 8, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robles-v-gonzales-ca9-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack