Case Name: Elsa Emilia VALDEZ DE CHAVEZ; 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: 2006-04-19
Citations: 177 F. App'x 689
Docket Number: No. 05-76891
Parties: Elsa Emilia VALDEZ DE CHAVEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before KOZINSKI, RYMER and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 177
Pages: 689–690

Head Matter:
Elsa Emilia VALDEZ DE CHAVEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-76891.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 10, 2006.
Filed April 19, 2006.
Martin Resendez Guajardo, Esq., Law Offices of Martin Resendez Guajardo, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department Of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before KOZINSKI, RYMER and PAEZ, 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 December 22, 2005, order to show cause, and we conclude that petitioner Elsa Emilia Valdez de Chavez has failed to raise a colorable constitutional claim to invoke our jurisdiction over this petition for review. See Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001). Because the immigration judge issued the removal order in the first instance, we also conclude that Molina-Camacho v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 937 (9th Cir.2004), does not apply. Accordingly, we sua sponte dismiss this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction with respect to petitioner Valdez de Chavez. 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, 111 F.3d 1137, 1144 (9th Cir.2002).
Petitioner Luz Maria Chavez Valdez 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, 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.