Duran

Duran v. Mukasey

Good Law
303 F. App'x 397
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 10, 2008No. 05-71332California733 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Miguel Duran and his two adult sons, Oscar and Miguel Enriquez, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision summarily affirming and adopting the Immigration Judge’s denial of their applications for cancellation of removal under INA § 240A(b)(l), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l). Although all three Petitioners satisfy the first three of the four requirements for such relief, the IJ determined that they failed to establish “that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to their respective qualifying family members if they were removed to Mexico. Id. § 1229b(b)(l)(D). Miguel Duran’s mother is a lawful permanent resident; Oscar Enriquez is married to a permanent resident and has a U.S. citizen child who was three years old at the time of the IJ’s decision; and Miguel Enriquez is married to a U.S. citizen and has a U.S. citizen child who was two years old at the time of the IJ’s decision.

As the government points out, we lack jurisdiction to the extent Petitioners challenge the IJ’s application of the facts of their cases to the applicable law and its ultimate decision that they failed to prove exceptional and extremely unusual…

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.