Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves a petition for review by a Mexican national challenging the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision, which affirmed an immigration judge's denial of her application for cancellation of removal. The primary legal issue concerns the court's jurisdiction to review discretionary determinations regarding exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B). The petitioner failed to raise a colorable constitutional or legal claim that would enable judicial review, a conclusion supported by precedent cases such as Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft. Consequently, the petition for review was dismissed. Additionally, the case notes a co-petitioner whose proceedings are pending due to a visa petition filed by his U.S. citizen spouse. The decision is not designated for publication and cannot be cited in this circuit except under specified Ninth Circuit rules. This case underscores the jurisdictional limitations on courts in reviewing discretionary immigration decisions and the necessity of presenting viable constitutional claims to invoke judicial oversight.
Legal Issues Addressed
Constitutional and Legal Claims in Immigration Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The petitioner failed to present a colorable constitutional or legal claim necessary to invoke jurisdiction for the review of the agency's decision.
Reasoning: Calderon de Rivera also failed to present a colorable constitutional or legal claim necessary to invoke jurisdiction for the review.
Jurisdictional Limits on Review of Discretionary Determinationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court is precluded from reviewing the agency's discretionary determination regarding the lack of demonstrated exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.
Reasoning: The court lacks jurisdiction to consider her challenge regarding the agency's discretionary determination that she did not demonstrate exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her qualifying relative, as outlined in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B).
Non-Publication and Citation Restrictions in Judicial Opinionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The ruling is not eligible for publication and is restricted from citation within the jurisdiction except under specific rules.
Reasoning: The ruling is not suitable for publication and cannot be cited in this circuit except under specific 9th Circuit rules.
Precedential Support for Jurisdictional Limitationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision aligns with precedent cases affirming that placement in removal proceedings does not inherently violate constitutional rights.
Reasoning: This aligns with precedent cases, including Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft and Montero-Martinez v. Ashcroft, affirming that mere placement in removal proceedings does not violate constitutional rights.