Corpuz-Ramos v. Ashcroft
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
1. Christine Corpuz-Ramos’ equitable estoppel claim is foreclosed by our decision in Cortez-Felipe v. INS, 245 F.3d 1054, 1057 (9th Cir.2001).
2. Corpuz-Ramos has presented no evidence that she was treated differently than other similarly situated aliens. Thus, her equal protection claim fails. See Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216, 102 S.Ct. 2382, 72 L.Ed.2d 786 (1982).
3. The INS, not Corpuz-Ramos, had the power to determine whether and when her deportation proceedings would commence. Having no protectable interest in the timing of the deportation proceedings, Corpuz-Ramos has no valid due process claim. See Cabasug v. INS, 847 F.2d 1321, 1324 (9th Cir.1988); see also Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972).
PETITION DENIED.
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
68 F. App'x 867 (Corpuz-Ramos v. Ashcroft) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.