Molina v. Ashcroft

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
April 16, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-60426
Summary Calendar
MARIA DEL ROSARIO MOLINA,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A77 788 231
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Maria Del Rosario Molina petitions this court for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the
Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying Molina’s application for
cancellation of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1), as
well as her request for voluntary departure. Molina argues that:
(1) the federal crime for which she was previously convicted did
not involve moral turpitude; (2) her federal crime was not an
aggravated felony offense; (3) the IJ erred by admitting

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 02-60426
-2-
uncertified evidence that her application for temporary resident
status had been denied; and (4) the IJ erred by not allowing
testimony regarding hardship to family members resulting from her
removal. Because Molina does not warrant any relief, we
pretermit any jurisdictional issues under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(C). See United States v. Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309, 310
(5th Cir. 2000).
This court reviews only the decision of the BIA and not that
of the Immigration Judge, except to the extent that the decision
of the Immigration Judge influenced the BIA’s decision. See
Carbajal-Gonzales v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996). This
court conducts a de novo review of the BIA’s legal rulings but
“will defer to the BIA’s interpretation of immigration
regulations if the interpretation is reasonable.” Lopez-Gomez v.
Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001). Fact findings are
reviewed for substantial evidence. See id.
The BIA’s denial of Molina’s application for cancellation of
removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a) was not erroneous because
Molina failed to submit any evidence showing that she was a
permanent resident alien. See 8 C.F.R. § 240.11(e)(2001)(alien
bears burden of proof to show eligibility for cancellation of
removal). Molina does not challenge the BIA’s determination that
she abandoned her application for cancellation of removal
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). She has therefore not shown
that the BIA erred in denying relief under that subsection.
Accordingly, Molina’s petition for review is DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --