Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8623658
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Espinosa v. Gonzales
No. 8623658 · Decided July 31, 2006
No. 8623658·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 31, 2006
Citation
No. 8623658
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** Rafael Pulido Espinosa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review. Pulido Espinosa’s contention that the Id’s finding regarding continuous physical presence improperly influenced her determination finding regarding hardship is not supported by the record and does not amount to a colorable due process claim. 1 See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005). PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 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. . Because Pulido Espinosa’s failure to demonstrate the requisite hardship is dispositive, we do not consider whether he established ten years of continuous physical presence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1); Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 889 (9th Cir.2003).
Plain English Summary
MEMORANDUM ** Rafael Pulido Espinosa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for cancellation of
Key Points
01MEMORANDUM ** Rafael Pulido Espinosa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for cancellation of
02Pulido Espinosa’s contention that the Id’s finding regarding continuous physical presence improperly influenced her determination finding regarding hardship is not supported by the record and does not amount to a colorable due process claim
03This 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.
04Because Pulido Espinosa’s failure to demonstrate the requisite hardship is dispositive, we do not consider whether he established ten years of continuous physical presence.
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM ** Rafael Pulido Espinosa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for cancellation of
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Espinosa v. Gonzales in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on July 31, 2006.
Use the citation No. 8623658 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.