Arreguin

Arreguin v. Ashcroft

Good Law
103 F. App'x 171
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 25, 2004No. 03-71052; Agency Nos. A76-380-239, A76-380-240California290 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Ramon Arreguin and his wife Rita To-var, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of their motion to reopen removal proceedings in which the BIA affirmed the decision of an immigration judge denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s original decision because Petitioners did not timely appeal the BIA’s first decision to this Court. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(1); Sheviakov v. INS, 237 F.3d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir.2001) (30-day rule is mandatory and jurisdictional); Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir.1996) (motion to reopen does not toll period). In addition, we lack jurisdiction to review the decision because it is based in part on a determination that Petitioners failed to demonstrate “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.” See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 889-90 (9th Cir.2003).

We also lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of Petitioners’ motion to reopen because such a denial is a judgment regarding the granting of the discretionary relief of cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252…

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.