Lomeli v. Holder

Ninth Circuit

Lomeli v. Holder

561 F. App'x 630

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 11, 2014

Docket07-73250

StatusUnpublished

This text of 561 F. App'x 630 (Lomeli v. Holder) 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

Lomeli v. Holder, 561 F. App'x 630 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Marcos Lomeli petitions for review of the BIA’s denial of his claim of United States citizenship and his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and challenges the district court’s conclusion that Lomeli did not acquire derivative citizenship from his mother under 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a)(7) (1952). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we affirm the judgment of the district court and deny Lomeli’s petition for review.

The government was not equitably es-topped from denying that Lomeli’s mother met the requirements of § 1401(a)(7). The Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer who decided not to place an immigration detainer on Lomeli following his release from prison lacked the authority to adjudicate Lomeli’s citizenship status, and therefore his conclusion was not binding on the government. Cf. Watkins v. U.S. Army, 875 F.2d 699, 707-08 (9th Cir.1989); Wagner v. Dir., Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, 847 F.2d 515, 519 (9th Cir.1988). Nor did the government engage in the sort of “deliberate lie or a pattern of false promises” that establishes affirmative misconduct. Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1184 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted). The government’s three-month delay in producing the 1968 statement falls far short of the kind of delay that could give rise to estoppel. See Morgan v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 1084, 1092 (9th Cir.2007); Jaa v. U.S. INS, 779 F.2d 569, 572 (9th Cir.1986). In any event, neither the “application of the doctrine of estoppel” nor the “invocation of equitable powers” authorizes a court to confer citizenship in violation of the limitations imposed by Congress. INS v. Pangilinan, 486 U.S. 875, 884-85, 108 S.Ct. 2210, 100 L.Ed.2d 882 (1988).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Lomeli failed to show that he is more likely than not to be tortured upon his return to Mexico. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). The BIA took into account the evidence surrounding Lomeli’s 1969 encounter with the police, but that single encounter does not compel a determination that Lomeli is likely to be tortured upon his return to Mexico more than 40 years later. The reports from the State Department and Amnesty International indicate that the Mexican government is making efforts to improve conditions for members of the LGBT community, and do not indicate that government officials engage or acquiesce in discrimination against or violence toward homosexuals. Cf. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, No. 09-71461, — F.3d —, —, 2014 WL 555138, at *6 (9th Cir. Feb. 13, 2014). The BIA refer *632 enced and applied the correct standard for CAT claims, and we reject Lomeli’s argument to the contrary.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED, PETITION 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 *

Marcos Lomeli petitions for review of the BIA’s denial of his claim of United States citizenship and his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and challenges the district court’s conclusion that Lomeli did not acquire derivative citizenship from his mother under 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a)(7) (1952). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we affirm the judgment of the district court and deny Lomeli’s petition for review.

The government was not equitably es-topped from denying that Lomeli’s mother met the requirements of § 1401(a)(7). The Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer who decided not to place an immigration detainer on Lomeli following his release from prison lacked the authority to adjudicate Lomeli’s citizenship status, and therefore his conclusion was not binding on the government. Cf. Watkins v. U.S. Army, 875 F.2d 699, 707-08 (9th Cir.1989); Wagner v. Dir., Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, 847 F.2d 515, 519 (9th Cir.1988). Nor did the government engage in the sort of “deliberate lie or a pattern of false promises” that establishes affirmative misconduct. Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1184 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted). The government’s three-month delay in producing the 1968 statement falls far short of the kind of delay that could give rise to estoppel. See Morgan v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 1084, 1092 (9th Cir.2007); Jaa v. U.S. INS, 779 F.2d 569, 572 (9th Cir.1986). In any event, neither the “application of the doctrine of estoppel” nor the “invocation of equitable powers” authorizes a court to confer citizenship in violation of the limitations imposed by Congress. INS v. Pangilinan, 486 U.S. 875, 884-85, 108 S.Ct. 2210, 100 L.Ed.2d 882 (1988).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Lomeli failed to show that he is more likely than not to be tortured upon his return to Mexico. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). The BIA took into account the evidence surrounding Lomeli’s 1969 encounter with the police, but that single encounter does not compel a determination that Lomeli is likely to be tortured upon his return to Mexico more than 40 years later. The reports from the State Department and Amnesty International indicate that the Mexican government is making efforts to improve conditions for members of the LGBT community, and do not indicate that government officials engage or acquiesce in discrimination against or violence toward homosexuals. Cf. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, No. 09-71461, — F.3d —, —, 2014 WL 555138, at *6 (9th Cir. Feb. 13, 2014). The BIA refer *632 enced and applied the correct standard for CAT claims, and we reject Lomeli’s argument to the contrary.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED, PETITION 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)

561 F. App'x 630, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lomeli-v-holder-ca9-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack