Case Name: Isidro Hernandez SALDANA; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-09-25
Citations: 202 F. App'x 252
Docket Number: No. 06-72888
Parties: Isidro Hernandez SALDANA; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 202
Pages: 252–253

Head Matter:
Isidro Hernandez SALDANA; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-72888.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 18, 2006.
Filed Sept. 25, 2006.
Isidro Hernandez Saldana, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
Victoria Ortega Rocha, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
Mayda Ivette Hernandez Ortega, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Song Park, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
We have reviewed the response to the court's July 12, 2006, order to show cause, and we conclude that petitioners Isidro Hernandez Saldana and Victoria Ortega Rocha have failed to raise a colorable constitutional or legal claim to invoke our jurisdiction over this petition for review. See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845 (9th Cir.2003), Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001). Accordingly, we dismiss this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction with respect to petitioners Hernandez Saldana and Ortega Rocha. 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).
Petitioner Mayda Ivette Hernandez Ortega does not have a qualifying relative for purposes of cancellation of removal. Accordingly, the court summarily denies this petition for review with respect to this petitioner. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D); Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir.2002).
DISMISSED IN PART and 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.