Case ID: f-appx_135/html/0110-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Carlos DIMAS, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-72591.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2005.
    
    Decided June 17, 2005.
    Frank P. Sprouls, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Linda S. Wendtland, Esq., John S. Hogan, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: KLEINFELD, TASHIMA and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       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.
    
    
      
       Alberto R. Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Carlos Dimas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion an immigration judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal. The immigration judge determined that petitioner failed to establish the requisite exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to qualifying United States citizen relatives. Petitioner has not raised any colorable due process claims, and we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary denial of cancellation of removal. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003); Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001). The voluntary departure period is stayed pursuant to Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).