Jimenez-Garcia v. Mukasey

Ninth Circuit

Jimenez-Garcia v. Mukasey

305 F. App'x 351

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 11, 2008

DocketNo. 08-73558

StatusPublished

This text of 305 F. App'x 351 (Jimenez-Garcia 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

Jimenez-Garcia v. Mukasey, 305 F. App'x 351 (9th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying petitioners’ motion to reconsider and reopen removal proceedings.

We have reviewed the record and petitioners’ response to the order to show cause and conclude that the questions raised in this petition are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). A motion to reopen must provide new evidence, and a request for reconsideration must be predicated upon legal or factual error. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C) & (7)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b) & (c)(1). Because petitioners’ motion failed to meet those requirements, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen and reconsider. See Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008).

Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.

All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal [352]*352shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

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

**

This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying petitioners’ motion to reconsider and reopen removal proceedings.

We have reviewed the record and petitioners’ response to the order to show cause and conclude that the questions raised in this petition are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). A motion to reopen must provide new evidence, and a request for reconsideration must be predicated upon legal or factual error. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C) & (7)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b) & (c)(1). Because petitioners’ motion failed to meet those requirements, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen and reconsider. See Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008).

Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.

All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal [352]*352shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

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)

305 F. App'x 351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jimenez-garcia-v-mukasey-ca9-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack