Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the petitioners sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision, which upheld the Immigration Judge's denial of their application for cancellation of removal. The primary legal issues involved the jurisdiction of the court to review the appeal under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) and the eligibility requirements for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). The court found that the petitioners failed to present a colorable constitutional or legal claim necessary to establish jurisdiction. Furthermore, the BIA's determination that the minor petitioners were ineligible due to the absence of evidence demonstrating a qualifying relative was upheld. The court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction and denied it in part due to the insubstantial nature of the claims. All pending motions were deemed moot, and the temporary stay of removal remains until the court's mandate is issued. The decision is not intended for publication or as precedent, in accordance with 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Disposition of Pending Motions in Immigration Appealssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: All other pending motions were denied as moot, and temporary stays remain until the mandate is issued.
Reasoning: All other pending motions have been denied as moot, and the temporary stay of removal and voluntary departure will remain in effect until the mandate is issued.
Eligibility for Cancellation of Removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The BIA concluded that the minor petitioners were ineligible for cancellation of removal due to lack of sufficient evidence of a qualifying relative.
Reasoning: The administrative record indicates that the two minor petitioners did not provide evidence of having a qualifying relative for cancellation of removal as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D).
Jurisdiction over Immigration Appealssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction as the petitioners did not present a colorable constitutional or legal claim.
Reasoning: The court has determined that the petitioners failed to present a colorable constitutional or legal claim sufficient to establish jurisdiction over the review.