Case ID: f-appx_113/html/0285-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Anselmo OLIVARES-PADRON; Maria Guadalupe Mendez-Avila, Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-72227.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Nov. 15, 2004.
    
    Decided Nov. 18, 2004.
    Michael Hernandez, Los Angeles, CA, Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, for Petitioner.
    Los Angeles District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Ethan B. Kanter, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Douglas E. Ginsburg, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, MCKEOWN and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Anselmo Olivares-Padrón and his wife, Maria Guadalupe Mendez-Avila, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that petitioners failed to demonstrate the requisite “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D). See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003).

Pursuant to Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004), petitioners’ motion for stay of removal included a timely request for stay of voluntary departure. Because the stay of removal was granted, the voluntary departure period was also stayed, nunc pro tunc, as of the filing of the motion for stay of removal and this stay will expire upon issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.