Luna

Luna v. Ashcroft

Good Law
103 F. App'x 168
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 25, 2004No. 03-70915; Agency Nos. A79-538-725, A79-538726, A79-538-727, A79-538-728California242 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

*169 MEMORANDUM **

Petitioners, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of their appeal from an Immigration Judge’s denial of their applications for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 , and we deny the petition for review.

Petitioners contend that they would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if returned to Mexico, but do not challenge the BIA’s determination that “none of them has a qualifying relative for whom they can establish ... [such] hardship.” Under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D), Petitioners are therefore ineligible for cancellation of removal.

Petitioners also challenge, on constitutional grounds, the exclusion of Mexicans from the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act. This contention is foreclosed by Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 517 (9th Cir.2001).

Pursuant to Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004), Petitioners’ motion for stay of removal included a timely request for stay of voluntary departure. Because the stay of removal was continued based on the government’s filing of a notice of non-opposition, the voluntary…

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.