Navarrete, et al v. Keisler
Filing
920071010
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 06-60979 Summary Calendar
October 10, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
EDUARDO NAVARRETE; MARIA ESTHER NAVARRETE; ESTHER NAVARRETE Petitioners v. PETER D. KEISLER, ACTING U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A79 003 488 BIA No. A79 003 489 BIA No. A79 006 490
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Eduardo Navarrete, Maria Esther Navarrete (wife), and Esther Navarrete (daughter) have filed a petition for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the denial of their applications for the cancellation of removal. Petitioners maintain the United States citizen daughter of Eduardo and Maria Esther Navarrete, Sara Navarrete, will suffer exceptional
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 06-60979 and extremely unusual hardship if they are required to return to their native Mexico. Petitioners contend the Immigration Judge (IJ) and the BIA erred in finding Sara Navarrete would not suffer such hardship. Petitioners further contend the IJ erred when he refused: to subpoena one of their witnesses; and to consider all of their documentary evidence. This court lacks jurisdiction to review an IJ's hardship determination in the context of a cancellation of removal application because it is a discretionary decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Wilmore v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 524, 526-28 (5th Cir. 2006); Rueda v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 831, 831 (5th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, the petition is dismissed to the extent it seeks review from the decision to deny cancellation of removal. Petitioners also claim the denial of cancellation of removal violated their due process rights. We have jurisdiction to consider this legal question.
Hernandez-Castillo v. Moore, 436 F.3d 516, 519 (5th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 40 (2006). The contention is unavailing, however, as Petitioners'
"[e]ligibility for discretionary relief from a removal order is not a liberty or property interest warranting due process protection". Mireles-Valdez v. Ashcroft, 349 F.3d 213, 219 (5th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To the extent Petitioners challenge the denial of cancellation of removal on due process grounds, the petition is denied. To the extent Petitioners assert the IJ violated their due process rights when he refused to subpoena their witness and consider their evidence, the record establishes that the IJ did not violate Petitioners' due process rights. PETITION DISMISSED IN PART; DENIED IN PART.
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?