Opinion
No. 08-72828.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed December 16, 2008.
Jesus Ruiz-Diaz, El Centro, CA, pro se.
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Barry J. Pettinato, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Monica Antoun, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, CAS-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeal. Agency No. A090-107-215.
Before: GOODWIN, CLIFTON and BEA, Circuit Judges.
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 from the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing an appeal of an immigration judge's denial of cancellation of removal.
The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect this status.
Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel is denied.
Respondent has filed a motion for summary disposition in part and for dismissal in part. Respondent's motion for summary disposition in part is granted because the 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). The record reflects that the BIA did not err in concluding that petitioner was removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B) because of his convictions for controlled substances violations. Accordingly, this petition for review is denied in part.
Respondent's motion to dismiss this petition for review in part for lack of jurisdiction is also 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). Petitioner has failed to raise a colorable constitutional or legal claim to invoke our jurisdiction over this petition for review. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926 (9th Cir. 2005); Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir. 2001).
All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.