Case ID: f-appx_87/html/0663-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Heracleo Malicse PATES, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-70752.
    INS No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 6, 2004.
    
    Decided Feb. 10, 2004.
    Heracleo Malicse Pates, pro se, Malibu, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, 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, Cindy S. Ferrier, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before KOZINSKI, O’SCANNLAIN and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R-App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

1. We lack jurisdiction to decide whether Pates should have been placed in suspension of deportation proceedings rather than cancellation of removal proceedings. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g); see also Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft, 291 F.3d 594, 598-99 (9th Cir.2002).

2. Pates’s claim that the cancellation of removal statute is unconstitutional because it requires a child to be under twenty-one years of age to be a qualifying relative also fails. Because children under twenty-one are more likely to need continuous parental contact and involvement with their daily lives, there is a rational basis supporting this classification. See Garberding v. INS, 30 F.3d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir.1994).

DISMISSED IN PART; DENIED 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.