Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
Judith L. Wood, Esq., Law Offices of Judith L. Wood, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
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, Emily A. Radford, Esq., Gjon Juncaj, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency Nos. A79-522-791, A79-522-792, A79-522-793, A79-522-794.
Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, GOODWIN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
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.
Petitioners' motion to file a late response to the court's December 13, 2005 order to show cause is granted.
Page 551.
We have reviewed the response to the court's December 13, 2005, order to show cause, and we conclude that petitioners Fortino Guerrero-Larranaga and Norma Alicia Guerrero 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, we sua sponte dismiss this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. 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).
Petitioners Eder Jonathan Guerrero-Garcia and Edwin Humberto Guerrero-Garcia do not have a qualifying relative for purposes of cancellation of removal. Accordingly, the court summarily denies the petition with respect to these petitioners. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D); Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir.2002).
All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal and voluntary departure confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) and Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004), shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.
DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part.