Nieto

Nieto v. Gonzales

Good Law
202 F. App'x 276
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 25, 2006No. 06-71695California347 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

We have reviewed the petition for review and stay motion. We conclude that petitioners Albino Gasea Nieto (Agency No. A96-061-872) and Simona Gasea Bustos (Agency No. A96-061-873) have failed to raise a colorable constitutional claim to invoke our jurisdiction over this petition for review under the REAL ID Act. See Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001). Accordingly, respondent’s unopposed motion to dismiss this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction in part is granted because we lack jurisdiction to review the Immigration Judge’s subjective, discretionary determination that petitioners did not demonstrate that their removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). See 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a) (2) (B) (I); Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir.2005); Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003); Montero-Martinez v. Ashcroft, 277 F.3d 1137, 1144 (9th Cir.2002).

In addition, with respect to petitioner, Jorge Ivan Gasea Bustos (Agency No. A96-061-874), the court grants respondent’s unopposed motion for summary denial of the petition for…

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.