Edmund Duda v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

Ninth Circuit

Edmund Duda v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

515 F. App'x 690

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 18, 2013

Docket08-73585

StatusUnpublished

This text of 515 F. App'x 690 (Edmund Duda v. Eric H. Holder Jr.) 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

Edmund Duda v. Eric H. Holder Jr., 515 F. App'x 690 (9th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Edmund Duda petitions for review of the decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s denial of his application for a waiver of inadmissibility and adjustment of status. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we dismiss in part and deny in part Duda’s petition for review. 1

*691 1. We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of § 212(c) relief. See Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 923 (9th Cir.2007) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)). In three separate orders, the BIA concluded that Duda did not merit a favorable exercise of discretion, therefore he was ineligible for a § 212(c) waiver. Duda does not challenge the BIA’s denial on any constitutional or legal grounds. Nor does he assert that the BIA failed to balance all the favorable and unfavorable factors when determining whether he was entitled to relief under former § 212(c). See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir.2011). Thus, we lack jurisdiction to reconsider the BIA’s discretionary decision to deny § 212(c) relief. Because we lack jurisdiction, we need not address the merits of the remaining issues related to the § 212(c) waiver raised on appeal as those issues are moot.

2. Duda is also ineligible for adjustment of status as a refugee under 8 U.S.C. § 1159. Assuming exhaustion, because Duda adjusted his status to that of a legal permanent resident, he is no longer eligible for adjustment of status as a refugee. See Robleto-Pastora v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1051, 1059-60 (9th Cir.2010); Matter of S-I-K-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 324, 330 (BIA 2007).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

. In light of the foregoing disposition, Duda's Motion to Remand filed March 17, 2013 is denied.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Edmund Duda petitions for review of the decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s denial of his application for a waiver of inadmissibility and adjustment of status. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we dismiss in part and deny in part Duda’s petition for review. 1

*691 1. We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of § 212(c) relief. See Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 923 (9th Cir.2007) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)). In three separate orders, the BIA concluded that Duda did not merit a favorable exercise of discretion, therefore he was ineligible for a § 212(c) waiver. Duda does not challenge the BIA’s denial on any constitutional or legal grounds. Nor does he assert that the BIA failed to balance all the favorable and unfavorable factors when determining whether he was entitled to relief under former § 212(c). See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir.2011). Thus, we lack jurisdiction to reconsider the BIA’s discretionary decision to deny § 212(c) relief. Because we lack jurisdiction, we need not address the merits of the remaining issues related to the § 212(c) waiver raised on appeal as those issues are moot.

2. Duda is also ineligible for adjustment of status as a refugee under 8 U.S.C. § 1159. Assuming exhaustion, because Duda adjusted his status to that of a legal permanent resident, he is no longer eligible for adjustment of status as a refugee. See Robleto-Pastora v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1051, 1059-60 (9th Cir.2010); Matter of S-I-K-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 324, 330 (BIA 2007).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

. In light of the foregoing disposition, Duda's Motion to Remand filed March 17, 2013 is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

515 F. App'x 690, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edmund-duda-v-eric-h-holder-jr-ca9-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack