Case ID: f-appx_235/html/0691-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Humberto GARCIA-SORIANO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-75530.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 20, 2007 .
    Filed Aug. 24, 2007.
    Nicholas O. Agbo, Law Office of Nicholas O. Agbo, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Nancy E. Friedman, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, KLEINFELD and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

We have reviewed the opposition to the motion to dismiss this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction and the response to the court’s May 11, 2007 order to show cause. We conclude that petitioner has not raised a colorable constitutional claim with respect to his contention that the immigration judge violated his due process rights. Therefore, respondent’s motion to dismiss this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction is granted. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003); Montero-Martinez v. Ashcroft, 277 F.3d 1137, 1144 (9th Cir.2002); Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001).

We further conclude that the Board of Immigration Appeals did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to remand. See Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003). Thus, the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.

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