Ceja-Cervantes

Ceja-Cervantes v. Gonzales

Good Law
130 F. App'x 112
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 13, 2005No. 03-70147, A92-372-995California483 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Juan Ceja-Cervantes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. Ceja’s application was initially rejected by an Immigration Judge on the ground that he had not established that his removal would constitute an “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship,” as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D). On appeal, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision, agreeing with the IJ that Ceja did not satisfy the hardship requirement. The BIA also ruled that Ceja did not meet the 10-year continuous-physical-presence requirement under 8 U.S.C. *113 § 1229b(b)(l)(A). Ceja contends that the BIA erred in both of these findings. Because we lack jurisdiction to review Ceja’s challenge to the hardship standard, we dismiss his petition.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decisions regarding cancellation of removal, including its hardship determinations. Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 891-92 (9th Cir.2003). Ceja attempts to avoid this bar by framing his challenge to the BIA’s hardship determination in constitutional terms. See Ramirez-Perez v. Ashcroft,…

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.