Valdez de Chavez v. Gonzales
This text of 177 F. App'x 689 (Valdez de Chavez 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.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
We have reviewed the response to the court’s December 22, 2005, order to show [690]*690cause, and we conclude that petitioner Elsa Emilia Valdez de Chavez has failed to raise a colorable constitutional claim to invoke our jurisdiction over this petition for review. See Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001). Because the immigration judge issued the removal order in the first instance, we also conclude that Molina-Camacho v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 937 (9th Cir.2004), does not apply. Accordingly, we sua sponte dismiss this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction with respect to petitioner Valdez de Chavez. 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, 111 F.3d 1137, 1144 (9th Cir.2002).
Petitioner Luz Maria Chavez Valdez does not have a qualifying relative for purposes of cancellation of removal. Accordingly, the court summarily denies this petition for review with respect to this petitioner. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D); Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir.2002).
DISMISSED IN PART, 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 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
177 F. App'x 689, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valdez-de-chavez-v-gonzales-ca9-2006.