Court Opinion

ID: 8446540
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-04 22:43:44.531372+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:48:55.429574
License: Public Domain

ORDER
PER CURIAM.
We have reviewed the opposition to the motion to dismiss this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction, and we conclude that petitioner has failed to raise a color-able constitutional claim to invoke our jurisdiction over this petition for review. See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845 (9th Cir.2003); Ramirez-Perez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir.2003). 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), shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.
DISMISSED.