Sigala v. Gonzales

Ninth Circuit

Sigala v. Gonzales

146 F. App'x 919

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 25, 2005

DocketNo. 04-70067

StatusPublished

This text of 146 F. App'x 919 (Sigala 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

Sigala v. Gonzales, 146 F. App'x 919 (9th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Oscar Munoz Sígala and Rubina Oropeza De Munoz, married natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their applications for cancellation of removal. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider the Petitioners’ challenge to the IJ’s extreme hardship determination because it is a discretionary, nonreviewable determination. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.2003) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)).

The Petitioners’ contention that the BIA’s streamlining procedures violate due process is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 850-51 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Oscar Munoz Sígala and Rubina Oropeza De Munoz, married natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their applications for cancellation of removal. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider the Petitioners’ challenge to the IJ’s extreme hardship determination because it is a discretionary, nonreviewable determination. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.2003) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)).

The Petitioners’ contention that the BIA’s streamlining procedures violate due process is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 850-51 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 F. App'x 919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sigala-v-gonzales-ca9-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack