Opinion
No. 06-73223. Agency Nos. A79-519-620, A79-519-621, A79-519-622, A79-519-623.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
January 18, 2007.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Petitioners' "motion to accept late filing" is granted. The Clerk shall file petitioners' late opposition to the motion to dismiss.
We have reviewed the opposition to the motion to dismiss this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction, and we conclude that petitioners have failed to raise a colorable constitutional or legal claim to invoke our jurisdiction over this petition. See Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, respondent's motion to dismiss this petition for lack of jurisdiction is granted in part. 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). The petition for review is dismissed as to petitioners Jose Antonio Manzo (A79-519-620) and Leurvis Manzo (A79-519-621).
Respondent's motion for summary disposition in part is granted. The petition for review is denied as to petitioners Lorenzo Antonio Manzo-Silva (A79-519-622) and Veridianna Manzo-Silva (A79-519-623) because the record reflects that they lack qualifying relatives for purposes of cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1); Montero-Martinez, 277 F.3d at 1140-41 (stating requirements for cancellation of removal).
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.