Perez-Munoz v. Ashcroft
Perez-Munoz v. Ashcroft
Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
Alfonso Perez-Munoz and Soila Bustos, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro
Because the IJ’s denial of suspension of deportation was based on Petitioners’ failure to demonstrate “extreme hardship,” we lack jurisdiction to review this discretionary determination under the transitional rules of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. See id. at 1152.
Petitioners’ challenge to the BIA’s streamlining procedure is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 852 (9th Cir. 2003). Petitioners’ challenge to the exclusion of Mexicans from the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act is foreclosed by Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 517 (9th Cir. 2001). We find no merit in Petitioners’ remaining contentions.
Pursuant to Elian v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 897, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2004) (order), Petitioners’ voluntary departure period will begin to run upon issuance of this court’s mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
xhiS disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.