Court Opinion

ID: 8454241
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-05 02:58:02.437763+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:49:02.386676
License: Public Domain

MEMORANDUM **
This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order adopting and affirming an Immigration Judge’s order denying petitioners’ applications for cancellation of removal.
We have reviewed the record and the response to the court’s November 3, 2008 order to show cause, and we conclude that petitioner Jose de Jesus Barragan-Barragan has 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); Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001). Accordingly, we grant respondent’s motion to dismiss this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction with respect to petitioner Jose de Jesus Barragan-Barragan. 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).
A review of the administrative record also 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)(1)(D). See Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (9th Cir.2002). The BIA therefore correctly concluded that, as a matter of law, the minor petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal. Accordingly, respondent’s motion to summarily deny this petition for review with respect to the minor petitioner *18is granted because the questions raised by this petition are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam).
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 DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.