Alonzao v. Gonzales

Full title: Alejandro Leonides ALONZAO; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Feb 24, 2006

172 F. App'x 137 (9th Cir. 2006)

Opinion

Submitted February 21, 2006. ^*

* This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Moises A. Aviles, Esq., Aviles & Associates, San Bernardino, CA, for Petitioners.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, James A. Hunolt, Esq., Michele Y.F. Sarko, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency Nos. A96-048-575, A96-048-576, A96-048-577.

Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, GOODWIN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ^**

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Respondent's motion for summary disposition is construed as a motion for summary disposition in part and a motion to dismiss in part. So construed, the motion is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review with regard to petitioner Analia Elizabeth Calvillo Avina are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). Accordingly, the petition for review with regard to petitioner Analia Elizabeth Calvillo Avina is denied.

Further, we have reviewed the opposition to the motion for summary disposition and petitioners' opening brief, and we conclude that petitioners Alejandro Leonides Alonzao and Maria Concepcion Aviva have failed to raise a colorable constitutional claim to invoke our jurisdiction over this petition for review. See Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001). Accordingly, respondent's motion to dismiss this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction with regard to petitioners Alejandro Leonides Alonzao and Maria Concepcion Aviva is granted. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003); Montero-Martinez v. Ashcroft, 277 F.3d 1137, 1144 (9th Cir.2002).

Page 138.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in PART and DISMISSED in PART.