Felipe v. Mukasey

Ninth Circuit

Felipe v. Mukasey

294 F. App'x 361

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 24, 2008

DocketNo. 07-70605

StatusPublished

This text of 294 F. App'x 361 (Felipe v. Mukasey) 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

Felipe v. Mukasey, 294 F. App'x 361 (9th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Albino Rosas Felipe, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and constitutional claims. Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir.2003). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that petitioner failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his qualifying relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005).

We lack jurisdiction to review petitioner’s contention regarding continuous presence because he failed to raise that issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (this [363]*363court generally lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not exhausted).

Petitioner contends the IJ violated due process by not allowing him to elaborate on what would happen to his daughter after his removal from the United States. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the proceedings were not “so fundamentally unfair that [he] was prevented from reasonably presenting [his] case.” Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Moreover, petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice. See id. (requiring prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge).

We are not persuaded that petitioner’s removal would result in the deprivation of his child’s rights. See Cabrera-Alvarez v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 1006, 1012-13 (9th Cir. 2005).

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.

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Albino Rosas Felipe, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and constitutional claims. Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir.2003). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that petitioner failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his qualifying relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005).

We lack jurisdiction to review petitioner’s contention regarding continuous presence because he failed to raise that issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (this [363]*363court generally lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not exhausted).

Petitioner contends the IJ violated due process by not allowing him to elaborate on what would happen to his daughter after his removal from the United States. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the proceedings were not “so fundamentally unfair that [he] was prevented from reasonably presenting [his] case.” Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Moreover, petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice. See id. (requiring prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge).

We are not persuaded that petitioner’s removal would result in the deprivation of his child’s rights. See Cabrera-Alvarez v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 1006, 1012-13 (9th Cir. 2005).

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 F. App'x 361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/felipe-v-mukasey-ca9-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack