Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8641759
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Lopez-Vasquez v. Gonzales
No. 8641759 · Decided June 21, 2007
No. 8641759·Ninth Circuit · 2007·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
June 21, 2007
Citation
No. 8641759
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** Jorge Lopez-Vasquez and Julia Segura-Dominguez (collectively, “Petitioners”) seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) summary affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their applications for cancellation of removal. The IJ pretermitted Petitioners’ applications, concluding that they lacked any qualifying relatives for purposes of the hardship determination and rejecting Petitioners’ contention that their United States citizen grandchildren should qualify in light of their legal guardianship and custody and the de facto parent-child relationship between them. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition. Petitioners’ grandchildren do not meet the statutory definition of “child” set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (b)(1) and therefore cannot be considered qualifying relatives for purposes of cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(1)(D). Petitioners’ argument that their grandchildren qualify as orphans under § 1101(b)(1)(F)(i) is unavailing. Moreno-Morante v. Gonzales, — F.3d -, No. 05-75376, 2007 WL 1775209 (9th Cir., 2007) (filed concurrently with this disposition). Petitioners’ alternative argument that their grandchildren should be considered qualifying relatives in light of the de facto parent-child relationship between them is also unsupported by the law. Id.; see INS v. Hector, 479 U.S. 85, 90 , 107 S.Ct. 379 , 93 L.Ed.2d 326 (1986) (per curiam) (“Congress, through the plain language of the statute, [has] precluded this functional approach to defining the term ‘child.’ ”) (footnote omitted). Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Plain English Summary
MEMORANDUM ** Jorge Lopez-Vasquez and Julia Segura-Dominguez (collectively, “Petitioners”) seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) summary affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their applications for cancel
Key Points
01MEMORANDUM ** Jorge Lopez-Vasquez and Julia Segura-Dominguez (collectively, “Petitioners”) seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) summary affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their applications for cancel
02The IJ pretermitted Petitioners’ applications, concluding that they lacked any qualifying relatives for purposes of the hardship determination and rejecting Petitioners’ contention that their United States citizen grandchildren should quali
03Petitioners’ grandchildren do not meet the statutory definition of “child” set forth in 8 U.S.C.
04§ 1101 (b)(1) and therefore cannot be considered qualifying relatives for purposes of cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C.
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM ** Jorge Lopez-Vasquez and Julia Segura-Dominguez (collectively, “Petitioners”) seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) summary affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their applications for cancel
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Lopez-Vasquez v. Gonzales in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on June 21, 2007.
Use the citation No. 8641759 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.