Court Opinion

ID: 8672193
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-25 00:00:01.57222+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:57:21.536248
License: Public Domain

MEMORANDUM **
This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing petitioner Catalina Diaz-Villegas’ and petitioner Jesus Manuel Diaz-Valdi-viezo’s appeal of an Immigration Judge’s order denying petitioners cancellation of removal.
A review of the administrative record demonstrates that petitioner Jesus Manuel Diaz-Valdiviezo 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, as a matter of law, petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal. Accordingly, respondent’s unopposed motion for summary disposition in part is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review as to petitioner Jesus Manuel Diaz-Valdiviezo are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam).
Petitioner Catalina Diaz-Villegas 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, respondent’s motion to dismiss in part this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction as to petitioner Catalina Diaz-Villegas 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.
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.