Opinion
No. 06-73621.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed January 18, 2007.
Vicente Garcia Miranda, El Monte, CA, pro se.
Maria Monica Garcia, El Monte, CA, pro se.
Julio Valentin Garcia Gonzalez, El Monte, CA, pro se.
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, Michele Y.F. Sarko, Esq., Jeffrey J. Bernstein, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency Nos. A79-543-659, A79-543-660, A79-543-661.
Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ and BYBEE, Circuit Judge.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
We have reviewed the opposition to the motion to dismiss this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction and we conclude that petitioners Vicente Garcia Miranda (A79-543-659) and Maria Monica Garcia (A79-543-660) have failed to raise a colorable constitutional or legal claim to invoke our jurisdiction over this petition for review. See Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267 (9th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, respondent's motion to dismiss this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction is granted in part, as to these petitioners. 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).
As to petitioner Julio Valentin Garcia Gonzalez (A79-543-661), the petition for review is denied because he lacks a qualifying relative 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.