Bravo v. Gonzales

Ninth Circuit

Bravo v. Gonzales

151 F. App'x 516

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 3, 2005

DocketNo. 02-72497; Agency Nos. A75-612-062, A75-633-756

StatusPublished

This text of 151 F. App'x 516 (Bravo v. Gonzales) 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

Bravo v. Gonzales, 151 F. App'x 516 (9th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Jorge Valencia Bravo and Consuelo Cri-sostomo Zarate, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of their motion to reconsider. We deny the petition for review.

Unlike the order reviewed by Ma v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 553 (9th Cir.2004), the BIA’s order in this case did not “adopt[ ] the underlying reasoning and holding of its prior opinion.” Id. at 557. We cannot, therefore, review any order prior to the BIA’s denial of the motion to reconsider. IcL at 557 & n. 6.

The petitioners’ motion to reconsider did not specify the errors now alleged to have been made by the Immigration Judge (“U”). It made no mention of their children’s language skills, or the IJ’s alleged failure to act as a neutral factfinder and failure to elicit testimony. Instead, the motion focused on Valencia Bravo’s ability to support his family. The BIA therefore did not abuse its discretion, or commit a due process violation, by denying reconsideration on the basis that the petitioners in their motion raised no previously-overlooked issue. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002).

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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Jorge Valencia Bravo and Consuelo Cri-sostomo Zarate, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of their motion to reconsider. We deny the petition for review.

Unlike the order reviewed by Ma v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 553 (9th Cir.2004), the BIA’s order in this case did not “adopt[ ] the underlying reasoning and holding of its prior opinion.” Id. at 557. We cannot, therefore, review any order prior to the BIA’s denial of the motion to reconsider. IcL at 557 & n. 6.

The petitioners’ motion to reconsider did not specify the errors now alleged to have been made by the Immigration Judge (“U”). It made no mention of their children’s language skills, or the IJ’s alleged failure to act as a neutral factfinder and failure to elicit testimony. Instead, the motion focused on Valencia Bravo’s ability to support his family. The BIA therefore did not abuse its discretion, or commit a due process violation, by denying reconsideration on the basis that the petitioners in their motion raised no previously-overlooked issue. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002).

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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 F. App'x 516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bravo-v-gonzales-ca9-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack