Avila-Ayala v. Holder

Ninth Circuit

Avila-Ayala v. Holder

371 F. App'x 837

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 24, 2010

Docket07-74924

StatusUnpublished

This text of 371 F. App'x 837 (Avila-Ayala 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

Avila-Ayala v. Holder, 371 F. App'x 837 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Jorge Avila-Ayala, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have *838 jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo constitutional challenges. Masnauskas v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1067, 1069 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

Avila-Ayala’s equal protection claim is not colorable because he was ineligible for relief under former Immigration and Nationality Act § 212(c) regardless of when proceedings were initiated against him. See Alvarez-Barajas v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1050, 1054 (9th Cir.2005); 8 C.F.R. § 1212.3(h)(2) (section 440(d) of the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 applies to guilty pleas made between April 24, 1996 and April 1, 1997).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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 **

Jorge Avila-Ayala, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have *838 jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo constitutional challenges. Masnauskas v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1067, 1069 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

Avila-Ayala’s equal protection claim is not colorable because he was ineligible for relief under former Immigration and Nationality Act § 212(c) regardless of when proceedings were initiated against him. See Alvarez-Barajas v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1050, 1054 (9th Cir.2005); 8 C.F.R. § 1212.3(h)(2) (section 440(d) of the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 applies to guilty pleas made between April 24, 1996 and April 1, 1997).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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)

371 F. App'x 837, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/avila-ayala-v-holder-ca9-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack