Case Name: Carlos Hernandez CARDENAS; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-05-15
Citations: 278 F. App'x 768
Docket Number: No. 07-74118
Parties: Carlos Hernandez CARDENAS; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, THOMAS and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 278
Pages: 768–769

Head Matter:
Carlos Hernandez CARDENAS; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-74118.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 12, 2008.
Filed May 15, 2008.
Carlos Hernandez Cardenas, Fontana, 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, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, THOMAS and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying petitioners' application for cancellation of removal.
A review of the administrative record demonstrates that the minor petitioner has presented no evidence that he has a qualifying relative for purposes of cancellation of removal as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D). See Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (9th Cir.2002). The BIA therefore correctly concluded that the minor petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review in part as to the minor petitioner. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam).
We have reviewed the response to the order to show cause, and we conclude that petitioners Carlos Hernandez Cardenas and Maria Guadalupe Ocegueda have failed to raise a colorable constitutional or legal claim to invoke our jurisdiction over this petition for review. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926 (9th Cir.2005); Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 852 (9th Cir.2003); Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction in part as to petitioners Carlos Hernandez Cardenas and Maria Guadalupe Ocegueda. 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), shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.