Licea v. Mukasey

Ninth Circuit

Licea v. Mukasey

302 F. App'x 599

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 2, 2008

DocketNo. 05-74499

StatusPublished

This text of 302 F. App'x 599 (Licea 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

Licea v. Mukasey, 302 F. App'x 599 (9th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Jose Salvador Perez Licea and Olivia Lopez Garibaldo, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen, and the former Legalization Appeals Unit’s (“LAU”) order dismissing Lopez Garibaldo’s appeal from the denial of her Special Agricultural Worker application. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1160(e)(3), 1252, and we deny the petition for review.

The LAU did not make findings that were “directly contrary to clear and convincing facts contained in the record considered as a whole,” abuse its discretion, or violate due process in concluding that Lopez Garibaldo failed to establish the requisite period of qualifying employment. See id. § 1160(b)(3); Perez-Martin v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 752, 758-59 (9th Cir.2005). In rebuttal, the government offered evidence which called into question Lopez Garibaldo’s claim of employment. The letter Lopez Garibaldo submitted on appeal was insufficient to negate the inference of the government’s showing. See Perez-Martin, 394 F.3d at 759.

We conclude that the BIA acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence presented with the motion to reopen was insufficient to warrant reopening. See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002) (BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law”).

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

**

Jose Salvador Perez Licea and Olivia Lopez Garibaldo, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen, and the former Legalization Appeals Unit’s (“LAU”) order dismissing Lopez Garibaldo’s appeal from the denial of her Special Agricultural Worker application. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1160(e)(3), 1252, and we deny the petition for review.

The LAU did not make findings that were “directly contrary to clear and convincing facts contained in the record considered as a whole,” abuse its discretion, or violate due process in concluding that Lopez Garibaldo failed to establish the requisite period of qualifying employment. See id. § 1160(b)(3); Perez-Martin v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 752, 758-59 (9th Cir.2005). In rebuttal, the government offered evidence which called into question Lopez Garibaldo’s claim of employment. The letter Lopez Garibaldo submitted on appeal was insufficient to negate the inference of the government’s showing. See Perez-Martin, 394 F.3d at 759.

We conclude that the BIA acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence presented with the motion to reopen was insufficient to warrant reopening. See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002) (BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law”).

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)

302 F. App'x 599, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/licea-v-mukasey-ca9-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack