Chunhua Huang v. Gonzales

Ninth Circuit

Chunhua Huang v. Gonzales

171 F. App'x 50

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 14, 2006

DocketNo. 05-70093

StatusPublished

This text of 171 F. App'x 50 (Chunhua Huang 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

Chunhua Huang v. Gonzales, 171 F. App'x 50 (9th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Chunhua Huang filed a habeas petition in district court, which was transferred to this court as a petition for review, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel and abuse of discretion in various immigration proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) and deny the petition for review.

Because the effective date of Huang’s petition is January 21, 2004, we only have jurisdiction to consider her challenge to the BIA’s order dated December 23, 2003. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (stating that an alien must file a petition for review “not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal”); Stone v. I.N.S., 514 U.S. 386, 405, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995) (holding that this time requirement is “mandatory and jurisdictional”) (citation omitted).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Huang’s motion for reconsideration. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) states, “A motion to reconsider shall state the reasons for the motion by specifying the errors of fact or law in the prior Board decision and shall be supported by pertinent authority.” However, Huang’s motion does not specify any legal or factual [51]*51error on the part of the BIA and instead reiterates arguments already rejected by the BIA. The motion also improperly attempts to introduce new evidence.¹ See Socop-Gonzalez v. I.N.S., 272 F.Sd 1176, 1180 n. 2 (9th Cir.2001).

PETITION 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Chunhua Huang filed a habeas petition in district court, which was transferred to this court as a petition for review, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel and abuse of discretion in various immigration proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) and deny the petition for review.

Because the effective date of Huang’s petition is January 21, 2004, we only have jurisdiction to consider her challenge to the BIA’s order dated December 23, 2003. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (stating that an alien must file a petition for review “not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal”); Stone v. I.N.S., 514 U.S. 386, 405, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995) (holding that this time requirement is “mandatory and jurisdictional”) (citation omitted).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Huang’s motion for reconsideration. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) states, “A motion to reconsider shall state the reasons for the motion by specifying the errors of fact or law in the prior Board decision and shall be supported by pertinent authority.” However, Huang’s motion does not specify any legal or factual [51]*51error on the part of the BIA and instead reiterates arguments already rejected by the BIA. The motion also improperly attempts to introduce new evidence.¹ See Socop-Gonzalez v. I.N.S., 272 F.Sd 1176, 1180 n. 2 (9th Cir.2001).

PETITION 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 F. App'x 50, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chunhua-huang-v-gonzales-ca9-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack