Opinion
No. 07-71876.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed October 10, 2007.
Abel Nestor Nicanor, Garden Grove, CA, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Emily A. Radford, Esq., M. Lee Quinn, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency Nos. A75-760-340, A75-760-341, A75-760-343, A75-760-344.
Before: B. FLETCHEK, BEKZON and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order affirming the denial of petitioners' applications for cancellation of removal.
Upon review of the record and petitioners' response to the court's order to show cause, we conclude that petitioners Abel Nestor Nicanor and Cirila Bernabe Bahena have failed to raise a colorable constitutional or legal claim to invoke our jurisdiction over this petition for review. See Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir. 2001) (stating that traditional "abuse of discretion" challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims which would invoke appellate jurisdiction). Accordingly, respondent's motion to dismiss in part this petition for review is granted with respect to the above petitioners. 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).
Petitioners Juan Carlos Nicanor Bernabe and Lizbeth Nicanor Bernabe do not challenge the finding that they lack a qualifying relative as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). The BIA correctly concluded therefore that petitioners were ineligible for cancellation of removal. See Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (9th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, respondent's motion for summary disposition in part is granted with respect to the above petitioners.
All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal and voluntary departure confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) and Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir. 2004), shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.