Case ID: f-appx_294/html/0294-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jose Luis Agustiniano ANICA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-71768.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 8, 2008.
    
    Filed Sept. 22, 2008.
    Jose Luis Agustiniano Anica, San Juan Capistrano, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-District Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security San Francisco, CA, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Washington, DC 20044.
    Before TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Luis Agustiniano Anica, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Anica is ineligible for cancellation of removal because he lacks a qualifying relative. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(d). Anica’s equal protection challenge to the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (“NA-CARA”) is foreclosed by our decision in Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft, 291 F.3d 594, 602-03 (9th Cir.2002) (“Congress’s decision to afford more favorable treatment to certain aliens ‘stems from a rational diplomatic decision to encourage such aliens to remain in the United States’ ”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.