Chavando v. Gonzales

Ninth Circuit

Chavando v. Gonzales

158 F. App'x 864

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 14, 2005

DocketNo. 04-72202

StatusPublished

This text of 158 F. App'x 864 (Chavando 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

Chavando v. Gonzales, 158 F. App'x 864 (9th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Maria Selsa Chavando, proceeding pro se, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) April 12, 2004, denial of her motion to reconsider the BIA’s decision affirming an immigration judge’s denial of her cancellation of removal application. We lack jurisdiction to consider Chavando’s contentions because they pertain solely to the BIA’s denial of her cancellation of removal application, for which she did not file a separate petition for review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir.1996). Chavando has waived any contentions regarding the BIA’s denial of her motion to reconsider by failing to raise them in her brief. See Cedano-Viera v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1062, 1066 n. 5 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.

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

**

Maria Selsa Chavando, proceeding pro se, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) April 12, 2004, denial of her motion to reconsider the BIA’s decision affirming an immigration judge’s denial of her cancellation of removal application. We lack jurisdiction to consider Chavando’s contentions because they pertain solely to the BIA’s denial of her cancellation of removal application, for which she did not file a separate petition for review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir.1996). Chavando has waived any contentions regarding the BIA’s denial of her motion to reconsider by failing to raise them in her brief. See Cedano-Viera v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1062, 1066 n. 5 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.

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)

158 F. App'x 864, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chavando-v-gonzales-ca9-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack