Case ID: f-appx_285/html/0361-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Juana ESPINOZA-AMAYA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-71821.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 18, 2008.
    
    Filed July 7, 2008.
    Frank P. Sprouls, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    David V. Bernal, S. Nicole Nardone, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Juana Espinoza-Amaya, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying her application for cancellation of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2) (“Special rule for battered spouse or child”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.

Espinoza-Amaya does not challenge the BIA’s determination that she failed to establish eligibility for cancellation of removal because she did not demonstrate that she was married to a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2)(A)(i); see also Lopez-Umanzor v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1049, 1053 (9th Cir.2005) (an alien who fails to establish each of the criteria set forth in the statute is not eligible for cancellation of removal). We therefore do not reach Espinoza-Amaya’s contention concerning the agency’s extreme cruelty determination.

Espinoza-Amaya’s remaining contention is unpersuasive.

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