Belech v. Holder

Ninth Circuit

Belech v. Holder

328 F. App'x 418

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 30, 2009

DocketNo. 06-74632

StatusPublished

This text of 328 F. App'x 418 (Belech 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

Belech v. Holder, 328 F. App'x 418 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Juan Merlos Belech, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings. See Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Merlos Belech’s contention that the BIA violated his due process rights by evaluating the evidence submitted with his motion rather than remanding it to the immigration judge for evaluation is unavailing. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (the BIA has authority to determine whether a motion to reopen should be granted); see also Ramirez-Alejandre v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 365, 382 (9th Cir.2003) (“Under BIA procedure, a motion to remand must meet all the requirements of a motion to reopen and the two are treated the same.”).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Merlos Belech’s challenge to the BIA’s denial of his underlying asylum and withholding of removal claims, as this petition is not timely as to that order and the court has already addressed these claims. See Mer-[419]*419los Belech v. Gonzales, 168 Fed.Appx. 820 (9th Cir.2006).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED 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

**

Juan Merlos Belech, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings. See Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Merlos Belech’s contention that the BIA violated his due process rights by evaluating the evidence submitted with his motion rather than remanding it to the immigration judge for evaluation is unavailing. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (the BIA has authority to determine whether a motion to reopen should be granted); see also Ramirez-Alejandre v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 365, 382 (9th Cir.2003) (“Under BIA procedure, a motion to remand must meet all the requirements of a motion to reopen and the two are treated the same.”).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Merlos Belech’s challenge to the BIA’s denial of his underlying asylum and withholding of removal claims, as this petition is not timely as to that order and the court has already addressed these claims. See Mer-[419]*419los Belech v. Gonzales, 168 Fed.Appx. 820 (9th Cir.2006).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED 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 418, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/belech-v-holder-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack