Case ID: f-appx_207/html/0842-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Raul Macario CHIC, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-72285.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 15, 2006 .
    Filed Nov. 17, 2006.
    Russell L. Marshak, Esq., Popkin Shamir & Golan, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Linda S. Wernery, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Janice K. Redfern, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: D.W. NELSON, REINHARDT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Raul Macario Chic, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ summary affirmance of the Immigration Judge’s discretionary denial of his applications for suspension of deportation and voluntary departure. We have jurisdiction over the constitutional question asserted in the petition for review pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) and now deny the petition.

We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s challenges to the denials of suspension of deportation and voluntary departure premised on discretionary determinations that petitioner lacks good moral character. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229c(f) & 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Moran v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1089, 1091 (9th Cir.2005).

We have already rejected petitioner’s claim that streamlining violates due process. Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 848 (9th Cir.2003). Because we lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary determinations, and review of streamlining in this case would require examination of the merits of those discretionary decisions, we lack jurisdiction to review the specific decision to streamline this case. Id. at 848-49, 854-55; Chong Shin Chen v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 1081, 1086-88 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED, IN PART, AND DISMISSED, 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.