Resendiz Casanova v. Gonzales

Good Law
146 F. App'x 197
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 18, 2005No. 03-72951; Agency Nos. A75-720-105, A75-720-106, A75-720-107, A72-720-108, A75-720-109California242 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Abraham Catalino Resendiz Casanova, his wife Maricruz Quintana Bareta, and their three children, all natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming an immigration judge’s order denying their application for cancellation of removal because they lack a qualifying relative. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review de novo constitutional claims arising out of removal proceedings, Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft, 291 F.3d 594, 599 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny the petition for review.

*198 Petitioners contend it violates equal protection to require Mexicans to prove exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative when applicants from other countries are exempt from this requirement under the Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act (“NA-CARA”). This contention is foreclosed by this court’s decisions in Jimenez-Angeles, 291 F.3d at 602-03 , and Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 517 (9th Cir.2001) (the decision to favor aliens from specific war-torn countries under NACARA must be upheld because it stems from a rational diplomatic decision to encourage such aliens to remain in…

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.