Vallejo v. Gonzales
187 F. App'x 783
Opinions
ORDER
Respondent’s opposed “motion for summary denial of review petition” is construed as a motion to dismiss. Petitioners have 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); see also Ramirez-Perez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir.2003). Accordingly, respondent’s motion to dismiss this petition is granted. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003).
DISMISSED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Vallejo v. Gonzales, 187 F. App'x 783 (9th Cir. 2006).
187 F. App'x 783 (Vallejo v. Gonzales) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Stanley v. Illinois
405 U.S. 645 (Supreme Court, 1972)
Moore v. City of East Cleveland
431 U.S. 494 (Supreme Court, 1977)
J. Jesus Torres-Aguilar v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
246 F.3d 1267 (Ninth Circuit, 2001)
Jose Cruz Romero-Torres v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General
327 F.3d 887 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)
Rosalba Ramirez-Perez v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General
336 F.3d 1001 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)