Case ID: f-appx_101/html/0267-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rolando GONZALEZ-MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-72418.
    Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 15, 2004.
    
    Decided June 21, 2004.
    Carlos Vellanoweth, Attorney at Law, John Wolfgang Gehart, Vellaneoweth and Gehart LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    
      Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Paul Fiorino, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before LEAVY, THOMAS, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rolando Gonzalez-Mendoza, native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his motion to reconsider its order affirming without opinion the decision of the Immigration Judge denying this application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Although we lack jurisdiction over discretionary decisions, Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003), we review de novo due process challenges, Lopez-Urenda v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 788, 791 (9th Cir.2003). We dismiss the petition for review.

The contention that the BIA’s decision without opinion violates due process is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 851 (9th Cir.2003), and does not raise a colorable due process challenge. See Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1270-71 (9th Cir.2001) (“To be colorable ... the claim must have some possible validity.”)

We reject the remaining contentions.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 
      
       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.