Cisneros Gutierrez, et al v. Holder, No. 07-72465 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 01 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE GUADALUPE CISNEROS GUTIERREZ; LILIA SALAZAR GARCIA; NAYELI CISNEROS SALAZAR, No. 07-72465 Agency Nos. A096-056-592 A096-056-593 A096-056-594 Petitioners, MEMORANDUM * v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 13, 2010 ** Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Jose Guadalupe Cisneros Gutierrez, Lilia Salazar Garcia, and Nayeli Cisneros Salazar, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing their appeal from an immigration * 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). judge s order denying their applications for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing de novo questions of law, Garcia-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 334 F.3d 840, 843 (9th Cir. 2003), we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The agency properly concluded that Cisneros Gutierrez was ineligible for cancellation of removal due to his conviction under California Welfare and Institutions Code § 10980(c)(2). See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), 1229(d)(1)(B). Cisneros Gutierrez s contention that his conviction was automatically reduced to a misdemeanor by operation of California Penal Code § 17(b)(1) and therefore qualified for the petty offense exception is unavailing. See Garcia-Lopez, 334 F.3d at 844-45. We lack jurisdiction to review the agency s discretionary determination that Salazar Garcia failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her U.S. citizen children. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B); Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir. 2009). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 07-72465

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.