Case Name: Jose Humberto FLORES TRUJILLO; 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: 2006-07-03
Citations: 187 F. App'x 771
Docket Number: No. 06-70498
Parties: Jose Humberto FLORES TRUJILLO; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, TALLMAN and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 187
Pages: 771–772

Head Matter:
Jose Humberto FLORES TRUJILLO; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-70498.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
July 3, 2006.
Leticia T. Moreno, Esq., Los Angeles, 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, Patricia A. Smith, 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
PER CURIAM.
We have reviewed the petition for review and stay motion. We conclude that petitioner has failed to raise a colorable constitutional claim to invoke our jurisdiction over this petition for review under the REAL ID Act, Pub.L. No. 109-13, Div. B, 119 Stat. 231 (2005). 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 because we lack jurisdiction to review the Boar of Immigration Appeals's refusal to reopen the case to review the Immigration Judge's discretionary determination that petitioners did not demonstrate that their removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D). See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(I); Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 596 (9th Cir.2006); Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir.2005); 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.
DISMISSED.