Court Opinion

ID: 8621994
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 09:34:37.806796+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:33.110207
License: Public Domain

MEMORANDUM **
This is a petition for review from 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 response to the court’s April 10, 2007 order to show cause, respondent’s motion to dismiss and the opposition thereto, and we conclude that petitioners Juan Nazarit Cardenas, A95316-008, and Teresa Nazarit Ornelas, A95316-009, have failed to raise a colorable constitutional or legal claim to invoke our jurisdiction over this petition for review. See Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001). Accordingly, the motion to dismiss this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction with respect to petitioners Juan Nazarit Cardenas and Teresa Nazarit Ornelas 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).
A review of the administrative record demonstrates that petitioner Emmanuel Nazarit Ornelas, A95-316-010, has presented no evidence that he has a qualifying relative 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, this petition is denied with respect to petitioner Emmanuel Nazarit Ornelas because the questions raised as to him are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam).
*527All 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.