Cornelio Arcos Memije Maria Del Rosario Rendon Velez v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General

481 F.3d 1163 Cornelio Arcos MEMIJE; Maria Del Rosario Rendon Velez, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 06-71282. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. March 26, 2007. Cornelio Arcos Memije, Corona, CA, pro se. Maria Del Rosario Rendon Velez, Corona, CA, pro se. CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, William C. Minick, Leslie McKay, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent. Before HARRY PREGERSON, RICHARD C. TALLMAN and CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. ORDER 1 On July 3, 2006, we dismissed this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. Since that time, petitioners have filed three motions for reconsideration of our July 3, 2006 order. Because petitioners have not identified any points of law or fact overlooked by the court, these motions are denied. See 9th Cir. R. 27-10. 2 Section 242(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act expressly eliminates our jurisdiction over…

*1164 ORDER

On July 3, 2006, we dismissed this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. Since that time, petitioners have filed three motions for reconsideration of our July 3, 2006 order. Because petitioners have not identified any points of law or fact overlooked by the court, these motions are denied. See 9th Cir. R. 27-10.

Section 242(a)(2)(B)® of the Immigration and Naturalization Act expressly eliminates our jurisdiction over decisions by the Board of Immigration Appeals that involve the exercise of discretion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(2)(B)®. We lack jurisdiction to review the Immigration Judge’s discretionary determination that Cornelio Arcos Memije and Maria Del Rosario Ren-den Velez failed to establish the requisite exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to their United States citizen children, and are therefore ineligible for cancellation of removal. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005); Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003).

For the same reasons, we lack jurisdiction to decide the issues raised in Judge Pregerson’s dissent. While we empathize with Judge Pregerson’s heartfelt sentiments, Congress has delegated…

dissenting:

I dissent. The decision in this case, if carried out, will inflict egregious harm on four children born in the United States. Our government’s refusal to grant the children’s undocumented parents cancellation of removal tramples on the children’s substantive due process rights — rights our government routinely ignores. By denying undocumented parents cancellation of removal, our government effectively deports their United States citizen children and denies those children their birthrights. See Cerrillo-Perez v. INS, 809 F.2d 1419, 1426-27 (9th Cir.1987). The government’s conduct violates due process by forcing the children to accept de facto expulsion from their native land or give up their constitutionally protected right to remain with their parents. See, e.g., Moore v. City of E. Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 503-05 , 97 S.Ct. 1932 , 52 L.Ed.2d 531 (1977) (plurality opinion) (“Our decisions establish that the Constitution protects the sanctity of the family precisely because the institution of the family is deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 , 92 S.Ct. 1208 , 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972) (recognizing that “[t]he…