Case ID: f-appx_81/html/0144-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Luis Alexander Villagran MONTERROSO, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-70722.
    Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 10, 2003.
    
    Decided Nov. 13, 2003.
    Luis Alexander Villagran Monterroso, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    Regional Counsel, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Los Angeles District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Christopher C. Fuller, Alison Marie Igoe, DOJ-U.S. Department Of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent,
    Before KOZINSKI, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Luis Alexander Villagran Monterroso, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo, Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir.2002), and deny the petition.

The BIA correctly determined that Villagran Monterroso is ineligible for cancellation of removal because he does not have a qualifying spouse, parent or child. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D); Molina-Estrada, 293 F.3d at 1093-94. Because the INS commenced removal proceedings after April 1, 1997, IIRIRA’s permanent rules apply, and Villagran Monterroso is not eligible for suspension of deportation. See Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft, 291 F.3d 594, 602 (9th Cir.2002).

Villagran Monterroso’s equal protection challenge to the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (“NA-CARA”) is foreclosed by this court’s decision in Hernandez-Mezquita v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 1161, 1163-65 (9th Cir.2002) (rejecting equal protection challenge based on NACARA’s asylum filing deadlines).

We reject Villagran Monterroso’s remaining contentions.

PETITION DENIED. 
      
       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.