Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8622581
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Arce-Hidalgo v. Gonzales
No. 8622581 · Decided July 3, 2006
No. 8622581·Ninth Circuit · 2006·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
July 3, 2006
Citation
No. 8622581
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** Respondent’s motion for summary disposition is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii); Farhoud v. INS, 122 F.3d 794, 796 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that petitioner had failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to warrant rescission of an in absentia removal order where although petitioner did not personally receive the notice of hearing, it was mailed to petitioner’s last known address and receipt was acknowledged); United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied. All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of deportation shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate. 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
PREGERSON, Circuit Judge, dissenting. I dissent. This case, and the sixty-four others like it filed today, will have an adverse effect on children born in the United States whose parent/parents are illegal immigrants. When a parent is denied cancellation of removal, the government effectively deports the United States-born children of that parent. This unconscionable result violates due process because circumstances will force children to suffer de facto expulsion from the country of their birth or forego their constitutionally protected right to remain in this country with their family intact. See, e.g., Moore v. City of E. Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 503-05 , 97 S.Ct. 1932 , 52 L.Ed.2d 531 (1977) (plurality opinion) (“Our decisions establish that the Constitution protects the sanctity of the family precisely because the institution of the family is deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 , 92 S.Ct. 1208 , 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972) (recognizing that “[t]he integrity of the family unit has found protection in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment”). Furthermore, as a nation we should recognize that many children born of illegal immigrants serve and have served with honor and distinction in our military forces, and many have laid down their fives on the altar of freedom.
Plain English Summary
MEMORANDUM ** Respondent’s motion for summary disposition is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument.
Key Points
01MEMORANDUM ** Respondent’s motion for summary disposition is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument.
02INS, 122 F.3d 794, 796 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that petitioner had failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to warrant rescission of an in absentia removal order where although petitioner did not personally receive the notice of hear
04The temporary stay of deportation shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM ** Respondent’s motion for summary disposition is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Arce-Hidalgo v. Gonzales in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on July 3, 2006.
Use the citation No. 8622581 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.