Jose Cruz Romero-Torres v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General

Good Law
327 F.3d 887·2003 WL 1957104·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3541·2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 7989
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 28, 200301-71638California1,923 words

Opinion

Opinion

McKEOWN, J.

Jose Cruz Romero-Torres (“Romero”) appeals the denial of his application for cancellation of removal. He argues that he meets the statutory requirements for cancellation of removal set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l); specifically, Romero claims that his removal would impose an extreme hardship because his parents rely upon him for emotional and financial support. After a hearing, the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied his request, finding that Romero was not the primary source of his parents’ financial support based on his undisputed contribution to their welfare, that his claimed difficulties were a “common occurrence” in any departure situation, and that he failed to demonstrate that his removal would result in “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” as required under the statute. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D). The IJ granted Romero’s request for voluntary departure. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) adopted the IJ’s decision and dismissed the appeal.

The threshold issue — and one of first impression in this circuit — is whether we have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of cancellation based on a rejected claim of “exceptional and extremely unusual…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.