Opinion
No. 05-71002.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed February 22, 2010.
Ramon Samuel Lozada Mendoza, Long Beach, CA, pro se.
Gudelia Gandarilla Araujo, Long Beach, CA, pro se.
Noemi Lozada Gandarilla, Long Beach, CA, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Home-land Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Virginia Lum Fax, Anthony W. Norwood, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency Nos. A096-362-320, A096-362-321, A096-362-322.
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Ramon Samuel Lozada Mendoza, Gudelia Gandarilla Araujo and Noemi Lozada Gandarilla, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the 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. Mufeasey, 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).