Case Name: Cuitlahuac LUCIO-ZAMORA; Xochitl Lucio-Cruz, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-03
Citations: 187 F. App'x 793
Docket Number: No. 05-77076
Parties: Cuitlahuac LUCIO-ZAMORA; Xochitl Lucio-Cruz, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, TALLMAN and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 187
Pages: 793–794

Head Matter:
Cuitlahuac LUCIO-ZAMORA; Xochitl Lucio-Cruz, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-77076.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
July 3, 2006.
Jaime Jasso, Esq., California Alien Rights Project, LLC, Westlake Village, CA, for Petitioners.
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, Lyle D. Jentzer, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: PREGERSON, TALLMAN and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
Petitioners' motion to extend the time to file an opposition to respondent's motion to dismiss is granted. The Clerk shall file the opposition.
We have reviewed the opposition to the motion to dismiss this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction, and we conclude that petitioners have failed to raise a color-able constitutional claim to invoke our jurisdiction over this petition for review. See Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001). Accordingly, 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).
All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal and voluntary departure confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) and Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004), shah continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.
DISMISSED.