Narrative Opinion Summary
In this immigration case, the petitioners sought reconsideration of a dismissal order issued by the Clerk on December 5, 2005, due to their failure to prosecute. The court granted the motion for reconsideration, reinstating the petition for review along with the stay of removal and voluntary departure. However, the respondent's motion to partially dismiss and summarily deny the petition was also granted. For one petitioner, the court determined it lacked jurisdiction to review the discretionary decision regarding exceptional and extremely unusual hardship under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), as no colorable constitutional claim was presented. Consequently, the petition for review was dismissed in part and denied in part due to lack of jurisdiction, as the issues raised by another petitioner were deemed insubstantial. All pending motions were declared moot, and the temporary stay of removal remains effective until the issuance of the mandate. The decision will not be published and cannot be cited in the courts of this circuit, except as permitted by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Dismissal of Petition Due to Lack of Jurisdictionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The petition for review was dismissed in part and denied in part because the issues raised were insubstantial and did not warrant further argument.
Reasoning: Regarding petitioner Juana Islas, the issues raised are deemed insubstantial and do not warrant further argument. Consequently, the petition for review is dismissed in part and denied in part due to lack of jurisdiction.
Jurisdictional Limitations under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to review discretionary decisions concerning exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.
Reasoning: For petitioner Remedios Melecio Islas Pineda, the court lacks jurisdiction to review the discretionary decision on exceptional and extremely unusual hardship under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) and the petitioner has not presented a colorable constitutional claim as established in Torres-Aguilar v. INS.
Non-Publication and Citation Restrictionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: This decision is not intended for publication and cannot be cited in the courts of this circuit except as per specific rules.
Reasoning: This decision is not intended for publication and cannot be cited in the courts of this circuit except as per 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Reinstatement of Petition for Reviewsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court granted the motion for reconsideration, reinstating the petition for review along with the stay of removal and voluntary departure.
Reasoning: Petitioners' motion for reconsideration regarding the Clerk's December 5, 2005 order, which dismissed their petition for review due to failure to prosecute, is granted. The petition for review, along with the stay of removal and voluntary departure, is reinstated.
Temporary Stay of Removal Under Ninth Circuit General Ordersubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The temporary stay of removal remains effective until the issuance of the mandate.
Reasoning: The temporary stay of removal and voluntary departure, upheld by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) and Desta v. Ashcroft, will remain effective until the issuance of the mandate.