Maldonado v. Keisler

MEMORANDUM *** On July 9, 2007, the court dismissed this petition for review for failure to file a response to the court’s order to show cause. Petitioners have filed a motion to reinstate. The motion to reinstate is granted. The court has also received petitioners’ response to the order to show cause. The Clerk shall file the response received July 25, 2007. Respondent’s motion to file late a motion to dismiss this petition for review and an opposition to the motion for stay of removal is granted. Respondent’s motion to dismiss is construed as a motion to dismiss in part and motion for summary disposition in part. A review of the response to the court’s May 18, 2007 order to show cause, and the administrative record, demonstrates that petitioner Raul Ricardo Garcia Santos has presented no evidence that he has a qualifying relative as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). See Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (9th Cir.2002) . The BIA therefore correctly concluded that, as a matter of law, petitioner Raul Ricardo Garcia Santos was ineligible for cancellation of removal. Accordingly, respondent’s motion for summary disposition with regard to petitioner Raul Ricardo Garcia Santos is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam). We have reviewed the response to the court’s May 18, 2007 order to show cause with regard to petitioners Raul Garcia Maldonado, Leticia Santos Zacarías, and Dulce Leticia Garcia Santos, and we conclude that petitioners have failed to raise a colorable constitutional or legal claim to invoke our jurisdiction over this petition for review. See Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001). Accordingly, the motion to dismiss this petition for review with regard to petitioners Raul Garcia Maldonado, Leticia Santos Zacarías, and Dulce Leticia Garcia Santos for lack of jurisdiction is granted. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(2)(B)(i); Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003); Montero-Martinez v. Ashcroft, 277 F.3d 1137, 1144 (9th Cir.2002). All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal and voluntary departure confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) and Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004), shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate. *418 PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. PREGERSON, Circuit Judge, dissenting: I dissent. This case, and the 60 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 by forcing children either 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 East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 503-05 , 97 S.Ct. 1932 , 52 L.Ed.2d 531 (1977) (“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 14th Amendment”). Furthermore, as a nation we should recognize that many who came here illegally and many children born of illegal immigrants serve and have served with honor and distinction in our military forces, and many have laid down their lives on the altar of freedom. As I have said before, “I pray that soon the good men and women in our Congress will ameliorate the plight of families like the petitioners’ and give us humane laws that will not cause the disintegration of such families.” Cabrera-Alvarez v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 1006, 1015 (9th Cir.2005).