Salinas v. Gonzales

Good Law
229 F. App'x 481
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 23, 2007No. 04-74746California230 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Roberto Hermosillo Salinas and Gloria Padilla seek review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals upholding an immigration judge’s order denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary determination that an applicant has failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative, see Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003), and petitioners do not raise a colorable due process claim, see Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005) (“traditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction.”).

We note that the Immigration Judge granted voluntary departure for a 60-day period and the BIA streamlined and changed the voluntary departure period to 30 days. In Padillar-Padilla v. Gonzales, *482 463 F.3d 972, 981 (9th Cir.2006), we held “that because the BIA issued a streamlined order, it was required to affirm the entirety of the IJ’s decision, including the length of the voluntary departure period.”…

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.