Mendez-Madrigal

Mendez-Madrigal v. Ashcroft

Good Law
91 F. App'x 595
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 23, 2004No. 02-70716California369 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Rosario Mendez-Madrigal and his wife Guillermina Castillo-Estrada (“Petitioners”), natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary dismissal under 8 C.F.R. § 3.1 (d)(2)® (2002) of their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review the BIA’s summary dismissal for failure to file a brief to determine whether it was appropriate. Vargas-Garcia v. INS, 287 F.3d 882, 884 (9th Cir.2002). We dismiss the petition in part, and deny the petition in part.

Petitioners contend that the IJ erred in finding that they failed to demonstrate extreme and exceptionally unusual hardship. The panel lacks jurisdiction to consider this contention because Petitioners failed to raise it below, see Cortez-Acosta v. INS, 234 F.3d 476, 480 (9th Cir.2000) (per curiam), and because the panel lacks jurisdiction to review discretionary denials, see Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 890-91 (9th Cir.2003).

Petitioners filed a Notice of Appeal, Form EOIR 26, with the BIA indicating their intention to file a brief, but…

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.