Case ID: f-appx_366/html/0809-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ramon Samuel Lozada MENDOZA; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-71002.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Feb. 22, 2010.
    Ramon Samuel Lozada Mendoza, Long Beach, CA, pro se.
    Gudelia Gandarilla Araujo, Long Beach, CA, pro se.
    Noemi Lozada Gandarilla, Long Beach, 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, Virginia Lum Fax, Anthony W. Norwood, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ramon Samuel Lozada Mendoza, Gude-lia Gandarilla Araujo and Noemi Lozada Gandarilla, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying their motion to reopen the BIA’s underlying decision summarily affirming the immigration judge’s denial of petitioners’ application for cancellation of removal based on their lack of a qualifying relative.

Petitioners contend that their equal protection and due process rights were violated by the requirement that petitioners have a qualifying relative in order to qualify for cancellation of removal relief. Petitioners’ contention is foreclosed by our decisions in Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1247 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam) (the qualifying relative requirement for cancellation of removal does not violate equal protection rights); Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1108 (9th Cir.2003) (holding that placing aliens in removal, rather than deportation, proceedings does not by itself amount to a due process violation); and Hemandez-Mezquita v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 1161, 1163-65 (9th Cir.2002) (no equal protection violation arising from placing aliens in removal rather than deportation proceedings).

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