U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2006

Ramirez v. Gonzales

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided July 28, 2006 · Alarcón, Hawkins, Thomas

195 F. App'x 559

Counsel

Jose Mendez Ramirez, North Hollywood, CA, pro se., Maria Angelica Perez, North Hollywood, CA, pro se., CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Emily A. Radford, Esq., Aviva L. Poczter, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM**

Jose Mendez Ramirez and Maria Angelica Perez, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision (“U”) denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings, Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir. 2001), and we deny the petition for review.

Petitioners are statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal because they lack a qualifying relative. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(d).

Petitioners’ equal protection challenge to the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (“NACARA”) is foreclosed by our decision in Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft, 291 F.3d 594, 602-03 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Congress’s decision to afford more favorable treatment to certain aliens ‘stems from a rational diplomatic decision to encourage such aliens to remain in the United States” ’).

Petitioners’ due process challenge to the BIA’s decision is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 851 (9th Cir. 2003) (no due process violation for *560the BIA to affirm the IJ’s decision without issuing an opinion.).

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.