Case ID: f-appx_287/html/0566-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Victoria GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-75824.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 1, 2008.
    
    Filed July 11, 2008.
    Nadeem H. Makada, Esq., Burlingame, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Audrey B. Hemesath, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, Nancy E. Friedman, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    
      Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Victoria Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her applications for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Garcia’s challenges to the agency’s denial of cancellation of removal and voluntary departure based on its discretionary determination that Garcia lacks good moral character. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229c(f), 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Moran v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1089, 1091 (9th Cir.2005). We do not consider Garcia’s contentions regarding physical presence because her failure to establish good moral character is dispositive of her cancellation of removal claim. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1); Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 889 (9th Cir.2003) (an applicant must establish continuous physical presence, good moral character, and hardship to qualify for cancellation of removal).

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