Javier Cifuentes Sosa v. Loretta E. Lynch

666 F. App'x 705
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedDecember 23, 2016
Docket14-70844
StatusUnpublished

This text of 666 F. App'x 705 (Javier Cifuentes Sosa v. Loretta E. Lynch) 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
Javier Cifuentes Sosa v. Loretta E. Lynch, 666 F. App'x 705 (9th Cir. 2016).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Javier Antonio Cifuentes Sosa, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial- of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of law, Hernandez v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1014, 1017 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Cifuentes Sosa’s motion to reopen, where he did not provide evidence of the reason why his convictions were vacated. See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90. (1988) (BIA may deny a motion to reopen for failure to show prima facie eligibility for the relief sought); Poblete Mendoza v. Holder, 606 F.3d 1137, 1141 (9th Cir. 2010) (“A conviction vacated for reasons ‘unrelated to the merits of the underlying criminal proceedings’ may be used as a conviction in removal proceedings whereas a conviction vacated because of a procedural or substantive defect in the criminal proceedings may not.” (internal citation omitted)).

Contrary to Cifuentes Sosa’s contentions, the BIA did not ignore or misapply *706 relevant precedent, place an improper burden of proof on him, or improperly analyze evidence of Cifuentes Sosa’s state court proceedings. Cifuentes Sosa’s reliance on law concerning the government’s burden to establish removability is misplaced.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

Related

Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Abudu
485 U.S. 94 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Poblete Mendoza v. Holder
606 F.3d 1137 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Hernandez v. Mukasey
524 F.3d 1014 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
666 F. App'x 705, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/javier-cifuentes-sosa-v-loretta-e-lynch-ca9-2016.