Arianza Rodriguez v. Ashcroft

Good Law
114 F. App'x 932
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 15, 2004No. 03-73090; Agency Nos. A75-620-764 A75-620-765California366 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Juan Manuel Arianza-Rodriguez and Alma Delia Cruz-Galvez, husband and wife, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their applications for cancellation of *933 removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review de novo Petitioners’ equal protection challenge. Ram v. INS, 248 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001). We deny the petition for review.

Petitioners contend that their equal protection rights are violated because, under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997 (“NACARA”), certain aliens from favored countries may qualify for relief by showing “extreme hardship” to themselves while Petitioners are required to show “exceptional and extremely unusual” hardship to a United States citizen or Legal Permanent Resident. Compare former 8 U.S.C. § 1254 (a)(1) (repealed 1996) with 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(D). This court has held broadly that Congress did not violate equal protection when it decided “to favor aliens from specific war-torn countries” by passing NACARA See Ram, 243 F.3d at 517. Contrary to…

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.