Gomez-Mercado v. Ashcroft , 66 F. App'x 839 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             F I L E D
    United States Court of Appeals
    Tenth Circuit
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    JUN 17 2003
    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
    PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk
    SALVADOR GOMEZ-MERCADO,
    Petitioner,
    v.                                                    No. 03-9524
    (BIA No. A78-143-481)
    JOHN ASHCROFT,                                    (Petition for Review)
    Respondent.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
    Before HENRY, BRISCOE and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.
    Petitioner Salvador Gomez was ordered removed by an immigration judge
    (IJ) after conceding that he was subject to removal. He applied for cancellation
    of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). The IJ denied that discretionary
    relief, finding that petitioner had failed to establish at least two of the four
    requirements to be eligible for cancellation of removal: that he had been
    continuously present in the United States for ten years preceding his application,
    *
    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
    doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
    generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
    and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
    and that his removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship
    to a listed person. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) summarily affirmed
    the IJ’s discretionary denial of the application for cancellation of removal.
    Petitioner filed a petition for review of the BIA’s summary decision, as
    well as a motion for stay pending review. We are, however, specifically
    precluded by statute from reviewing the denial of the cancellation of removal.
    
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    (a)(2)(B)(i) (“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
    court shall have jurisdiction to review . . . any judgment regarding the granting of
    relief under section . . . 1229b . . . .”); see also Escalera v. INS, 
    222 F.3d 753
    ,
    755-56 (10th Cir. 2000) (applying IIRIRA transitional rules and holding that
    appeals court lacked jurisdiction to review discretionary decisions of the BIA).
    Accordingly, we DISMISS the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction
    and DENY the stay motion as moot.
    ENTERED FOR THE COURT
    PER CURIAM
    -2-
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-9524

Citation Numbers: 66 F. App'x 839

Judges: Henry, Briscoe, O'Brien

Filed Date: 6/17/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/18/2024