Opinion
No. 07-71629.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed October 18, 2007.
Filiberto Bello Suarez, Santa Barbara, CA, pro se.
CAC-District, 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, Peter H. Matson, 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 No. A96-346-311.
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Respondent's motion to dismiss this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction in part is granted. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 600 (9th Cir. 2006) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of a motion to reopen "where the question presented is essentially the same discretionary issue originally decided.").
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. Huoton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). The Board of Immigration Appeals did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely and insufficient petitioner's motion to reconsider. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2); Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir. 2004).
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.
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 parent/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 [petitioner's] 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).