Serna v. Gonzales
Opinions
ORDER
We have reviewed the response to the court’s February 6, 2006 order to show cause, and we conclude that petitioner has faded to raise a colorable constitutional claim to invoke our jurisdiction over this petition for review. See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845 (9th Cir.2003); Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001). 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 confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) 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
187 F. App'x 782 (Serna v. Gonzales) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.