Ibarra-Razo v. Ashcroft

113 F. App'x 259
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided November 12, 2004·No. No. 03-71912; Agency No. A17-296-416·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Even assuming that petitioner Ibarra-Razo (“Ibarra”) has properly exhausted his administrative appeals, we lack jurisdiction to review his petition. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C); Sarmadi v. INS, 121 F.3d 1319, 1321 (9th Cir.1997). Ibarra was deported for a drug conviction in 1999, then reentered the United States illegally and, faced again with deportation, sought and obtained vacation of the earlier conviction for ineffective assistance of counsel. Our case law does not permit a petitioner who has so proceeded to reopen his deportation proceedings in such circumstances. See Hernandez-Almanza v. U.S. Dep’t. of Justice, 547 F.2d 100 (9th Cir.1976); see also Wiedersperg v. INS, 896 F.2d 1179 (9th Cir.1990); Estrada-Rosales v. INS, 645 F.2d 819 (9th Cir.1981).

PETITION DISMISSED.

Footnotes

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

Ibarra-Razo v. Ashcroft, 113 F. App'x 259 (9th Cir. 2004).

113 F. App'x 259 (Ibarra-Razo v. Ashcroft) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related