From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pardo v. Keisler

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 18, 2007
251 F. App'x 433 (9th Cir. 2007)

Opinion

No. 07-71451.

Submitted September 10, 2007.

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

Filed October 18, 2007.

Jorge Chico Pardo, Compton, 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, for Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency Nos. A96-051-250, A96-051-251.

Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision denying petitioners' motion to reconsider.

We have reviewed respondent's unopposed motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary affirmance and the record, and we conclude that the 07-71451 questions raised by this petition for review 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). Specifically, the BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied petitioners' motion to reconsider based on petitioners' unsupported statements that they could now demonstrate the requisite hardship to their qualifying relatives and that they should be permitted to seek legalization. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2); Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir. 2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that BIA denials of motions to reopen or reconsider are reviewed for abuse of discretion).

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.


I dissent. This case, and the 60 others like it filed today, will have an adverse effect on children born in the United States whose parents are illegal immigrants. When a parent is denied cancellation of removal, the government effectively deports the United States-born children of that parent. This unconscionable result violates due process by forcing children either to suffer de facto expulsion from the country of their birth or forego their constitutionally-protected right to remain in this country with their family intact. See, e.g., Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 503-05, 97 S.Ct. 1932, 52 L.Ed.2d 531 (1977) ("Our decisions establish that the Constitution protects the sanctity of the family precisely because the institution of the family is deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition."); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972) (recognizing that "[t]he integrity of the family unit has found protection in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment").

Furthermore, as a nation we should recognize that many who came here illegally and many children born of illegal immigrants serve and have served with honor and distinction in our military forces, and many have laid down their lives on the altar of freedom.

As I have said before, "I pray that soon the good men and women in our Congress will ameliorate the plight of families like the [petitioners] and give us humane laws that will not cause the disintegration of such families." Cabrera-Alvarez v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 1006, 1015 (9th Cir. 2005).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.


Summaries of

Pardo v. Keisler

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 18, 2007
251 F. App'x 433 (9th Cir. 2007)
Case details for

Pardo v. Keisler

Case Details

Full title:Jorge Chico PARDO; et al., Petitioners, v. Page 434 Peter D. KEISLER…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Oct 18, 2007

Citations

251 F. App'x 433 (9th Cir. 2007)