Case ID: f-appx_104/html/0131-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Fernando VALLE-JAIMES, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-73916.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 16, 2004.
    
    Decided Aug. 2, 2004.
    Kevin A. Bove, Esq., Attorney at Law, Escondido, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Lagu-na Niguel, CA, District Director, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Alison R. Drucker, Esq., Lyle Jentzer, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    
      Before: FARRIS, KOZINSKI, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

The IJ correctly ruled that Valle-Jaimes did not qualify for cancellation of removal. The insults, berating, and verbal harassment Valle-Jaimes endured from his wife did not subject him to the “extreme cruelty” required for cancellation under former 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2)(A), as it was a manifestation, not of domestic violence, but of a mere dysfunctional, stormy relationship. 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(c)(l)(vi); see also Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 824, 836, 837 (9th Cir.2003). And since analysis of the BIA’s decision to streamline Valle-Jaimes’s appeal is “indistinguishable from the merits” of his appeal, Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 855 (9th Cir. 2003), his challenge to streamlining also fails.

Petition DENIED. 
      
       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.