Arroyo v. Holder

Ninth Circuit

Arroyo v. Holder

328 F. App'x 385

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 4, 2009

DocketNo. 05-71958

StatusPublished

This text of 328 F. App'x 385 (Arroyo v. Holder) 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

Arroyo v. Holder, 328 F. App'x 385 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

*

To the extent that Arroyo’s petition challenges the Immigration Judge’s exercise of discretion, we dismiss it. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Ramirez-Perez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 1001, 1005 (9th Cir.2003). Insofar as Arroyo brings a due process claim based on alleged deficiencies in the Notice to Appear for removal proceedings, we deny his petition. His notice to appear said all it had to say under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1), that he was an alien not admitted or paroled, not a United States Citizen or national, so he was subject to removal. To the degree that Arroyo’s other claims are exhausted, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1), and raised in his opening brief, see Eberle v. City of Anaheim, 901 F.2d 814, 817-18 (9th Cir.1990), they lack merit.

DISMISSED IN PART; DENIED IN PART.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM

*

To the extent that Arroyo’s petition challenges the Immigration Judge’s exercise of discretion, we dismiss it. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Ramirez-Perez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 1001, 1005 (9th Cir.2003). Insofar as Arroyo brings a due process claim based on alleged deficiencies in the Notice to Appear for removal proceedings, we deny his petition. His notice to appear said all it had to say under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1), that he was an alien not admitted or paroled, not a United States Citizen or national, so he was subject to removal. To the degree that Arroyo’s other claims are exhausted, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1), and raised in his opening brief, see Eberle v. City of Anaheim, 901 F.2d 814, 817-18 (9th Cir.1990), they lack merit.

DISMISSED IN PART; DENIED IN PART.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

328 F. App'x 385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arroyo-v-holder-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack