Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

113 F. App'x 280

Estrada v. Ashcroft

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided November 18, 2004

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2004-11-18

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently March 2005

Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1229B (§ 240a of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))

Relies on Barron v. Ashcroft · Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2004-11-18

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1MEMORANDUM …

¶2Alfredo Saab Estrada and Karina Rubio Estrada, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing their appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

¶3We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that petitioners failed to demonstrate the requisite “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D). See id. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003).

¶4We similarly lack jurisdiction over petitioners’ contention that the IJ was biased and denied them the right to a full and fair hearing because they did not raise this contention before the BIA and thereby failed to exhaust them administrative remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 676-78 (9th Cir.2004).

¶5*281PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

¶6 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

/113/fappx/280 · .json · Public domain