Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8622409
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Pena v. Gonzales
No. 8622409 · Decided June 22, 2006
No. 8622409·Ninth Circuit · 2006·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
June 22, 2006
Citation
No. 8622409
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** Maria Enriqueta ViUicaña Peña, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for *790 review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for cancellation of removal on the ground that she failed to establish ten years of continuous physical presence in the United States due to a departure of more than 90 days. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(2). Villicaña Peña contends that she met the hardship requirement for cancellation of removal, but she does not challenge the finding that she failed to meet the continuous presence requirement. We therefore deny the petition for review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1129b(b)(l) (setting forth four requirements for establishing eligibility for cancellation of removal). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the *790 courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Plain English Summary
MEMORANDUM ** Maria Enriqueta ViUicaña Peña, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for *790 review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for cancellatio
Key Points
01MEMORANDUM ** Maria Enriqueta ViUicaña Peña, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for *790 review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for cancellatio
02Villicaña Peña contends that she met the hardship requirement for cancellation of removal, but she does not challenge the finding that she failed to meet the continuous presence requirement.
03§ 1129b(b)(l) (setting forth four requirements for establishing eligibility for cancellation of removal).
04This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the *790 courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM ** Maria Enriqueta ViUicaña Peña, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for *790 review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for cancellatio
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Pena v. Gonzales in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on June 22, 2006.
Use the citation No. 8622409 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.