FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAMON SAMUEL LOZADA No. 05-71002
MENDOZA; et al.,
Agency Nos. A096-362-320
Petitioners, A096-362-321
A096-362-322
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM *
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010 **
San Francisco, California
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Ramon Samuel Lozada Mendoza, Gudelia Gandarilla Araujo and Noemi
Lozada Gandarilla, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jlf/Inventory
decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying their motion to reopen the
BIA’s underlying decision summarily affirming the immigration judge’s denial of
petitioners’ application for cancellation of removal based on their lack of a
qualifying relative.
Petitioners contend that their equal protection and due process rights were
violated by the requirement that petitioners have a qualifying relative in order to
qualify for cancellation of removal relief. Petitioners’ contention is foreclosed by
our decisions in Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1247 (9th Cir. 2008)
(per curiam) (the qualifying relative requirement for cancellation of removal does
not violate equal protection rights); Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105,
1108 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that placing aliens in removal, rather than
deportation, proceedings does not by itself amount to a due process violation); and
Hernandez-Mezquita v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 1161, 1163-65 (9th Cir. 2002) (no equal
protection violation arising from placing aliens in removal rather than deportation
proceedings).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
jlf/Inventory 2 05-71002