Archila v. Ashcroft

Ninth Circuit

Archila v. Ashcroft

105 F. App'x 949

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 19, 2004

DocketNo. 02-72834; Agency No. A71-596-725

StatusPublished

This text of 105 F. App'x 949 (Archila v. Ashcroft) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Archila v. Ashcroft, 105 F. App'x 949 (9th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Guillermo Jairo Fuentes Archila, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s denial of his application for suspension of deportation. The transitional rules apply and we have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1149-50 (9th Cir. 1997). We deny the petition for review.

Archila contends that the BIA abused its discretion when it refused to terminate deportation proceedings and initiate removal proceedings (“repapering”). This contention lacks merit because the agency has discretion regarding when and whether to initiate deportation proceedings. See Cortez-Felipe v. INS, 245 F.3d 1054, 1057 (9th Cir.2001).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition, is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

Guillermo Jairo Fuentes Archila, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s denial of his application for suspension of deportation. The transitional rules apply and we have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1149-50 (9th Cir. 1997). We deny the petition for review.

Archila contends that the BIA abused its discretion when it refused to terminate deportation proceedings and initiate removal proceedings (“repapering”). This contention lacks merit because the agency has discretion regarding when and whether to initiate deportation proceedings. See Cortez-Felipe v. INS, 245 F.3d 1054, 1057 (9th Cir.2001).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition, is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 F. App'x 949, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/archila-v-ashcroft-ca9-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack