Noyola
Noyola v. Gonzales
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
We have reviewed the record and petitioners’ filings in this court. We conclude that petitioners have failed to raise a colorable constitutional or legal 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 motion to dismiss this petition for review is granted as to petitioner, Florencia Analco Noyola, A79-519-097, because we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that petitioner did not demonstrate her removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. 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).
Respondent’s motion to summarily affirm this petition is granted as to petitioner Diego Visoso Blanco, A79-519-098, because petitioner’s removal cannot result in “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien’s spouse, parent, or child, who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident” as required for cancellation of removal because petitioner has no…