Medina-Tafolla

Medina-Tafolla v. Ashcroft

Good Law
107 F. App'x 127
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 19, 2004No. 02-70982California247 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Alejandro Medina-Tafolla, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of *128 the Board of Immigration Appeals’ summary affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction over the IJ’s “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” determination because it involves an exercise of discretion. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003).

To the extent Tafolla contends the agency’s use of the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” standard denied him due process, this contention is foreclosed by Ramirez-Perez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 1001, 1004 (9th Cir.2003).

Tafolla’s contention that the BIA’s summary affirmance procedure violates due process is foreclosed by our decision in Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 851 (9th Cir.2003).

Pursuant to Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004), Tafolla’s 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…

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.