Case ID: f-appx_155/html/0254-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Javier ZEPEDA LOPEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-73994.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.
    
    Decided Aug. 4, 2005.
    Robert L. Lewis, Esq., Law Office of Robert L. Lewis, Oakland, CA, for Petitioners.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Joshua E. Braunstein, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Respondent’s motion to dismiss this petition for review as to petitioner Nancy Geovanni Zepeda ([ A XX-XXX-XXX ]) is construed as a motion for summary disposition. So construed, the motion is granted. See Montero-Martinez v. Ashcroft, 277 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir.2002).

Respondent’s motion to dismiss this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction as to petitioners Javier Zepeda Lopez and Juana Zepeda 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). Furthermore, petitioners have failed to raise a colorable constitutional violation. See Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir. 2001).

All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal (as to all petitioners) and voluntary departure (as to petitioner Nancy Geovanni Zepeda only) confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) and Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004), shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 
      
       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.