Case ID: f-appx_292/html/0706-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Catalina DIAZ-VILLEGAS, a.k.a. Catalina Villega-Munoz, and Jesus Manuel Diaz-Valdiviezo, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-71815.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 8, 2008.
    
    Filed Sept. 15, 2008.
    Catalina Diaz-Villegas, Glendale, AZ, pro se.
    Jesus Manuel Diaz-Valdiviezo, Glendale, AZ, pro se.
    OIL, Washington, DC, District Counsel, Office of the District Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, AZ, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: PREGERSON, McKEOWN 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

This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing petitioner Catalina Diaz-Villegas’ and petitioner Jesus Manuel Diaz-Valdi-viezo’s appeal of an Immigration Judge’s order denying petitioners cancellation of removal.

A review of the administrative record demonstrates that petitioner Jesus Manuel Diaz-Valdiviezo has presented no evidence that he has a qualifying relative for purposes of cancellation of removal as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D). See Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (9th Cir.2002). The BIA therefore correctly concluded that, as a matter of law, petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal. Accordingly, respondent’s unopposed motion for summary disposition in part is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review as to petitioner Jesus Manuel Diaz-Valdiviezo are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam).

Petitioner Catalina Diaz-Villegas has failed to raise a colorable constitutional or legal claim to invoke our jurisdiction over this petition for review. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926 (9th Cir. 2005); Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001). Accordingly, respondent’s motion to dismiss in part this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction as to petitioner Catalina Diaz-Villegas is granted. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003); Montero-Martinez v. Ashcroft, 277 F.3d 1137, 1144 (9th Cir. 2002).

All other pending motions are denied as moot.

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