Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8623806
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Penaloza v. Gonzales
No. 8623806 · Decided August 1, 2006
No. 8623806·Ninth Circuit · 2006·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
August 1, 2006
Citation
No. 8623806
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** Pedro Jiminez Penaloza and his wife Maria de Jesus Jimenez Penaloza, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion an immigration judge’s order denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review. The petitioners’ contention that the agency violated their due process rights by disregarding their evidence of hardship, including a psychological evaluation, is not supported by the record and does not amount to a colorable constitutional claim. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005) (“[tjraditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction.”). 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.
Plain English Summary
MEMORANDUM ** Pedro Jiminez Penaloza and his wife Maria de Jesus Jimenez Penaloza, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion an immigration judge’s order de
Key Points
01MEMORANDUM ** Pedro Jiminez Penaloza and his wife Maria de Jesus Jimenez Penaloza, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion an immigration judge’s order de
02The petitioners’ contention that the agency violated their due process rights by disregarding their evidence of hardship, including a psychological evaluation, is not supported by the record and does not amount to a colorable constitutional
03Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005) (“[tjraditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction.”).
04This 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.
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM ** Pedro Jiminez Penaloza and his wife Maria de Jesus Jimenez Penaloza, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion an immigration judge’s order de
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Penaloza v. Gonzales in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on August 1, 2006.
Use the citation No. 8623806 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.