U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2005

Castillo v. Gonzales

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided May 19, 2005

132 F. App'x 167

Counsel

Feliciano Arteaga Castillo, Garden Grove, CA, pro se., Gabriela Santana Lopez, Garden Grove, CA, pro se., Maria Guadalupe Arteaga Santana, Garden Grove, CA, pro se., Gerardo Arteaga Santana, Garden Grove, CA, pro se., CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Linda S. Wernery, Esq., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Castillo v. Gonzales (9th Cir. 2007)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM***

Feliciano Arteaga Castillo, Gabriela Santana Lopez, Maria Guadalupe Arteaga Santana, and Gerardo Arteaga Santana (collectively “petitioners”), natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion the results of an immigration judge’s decisions denying their respective applications for cancellation of removal.

We deny the petition because petitioners concede that they do not have the qualifying relative required by 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D) for eligibility for cancellation of removal. Because petitioners are statutorily ineligible for relief, we need not *168reach the question, exhausted or otherwise, of whether they were the victims of notary fraud.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.