Manzano v. Holder

Ninth Circuit

Manzano v. Holder

376 F. App'x 743

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 19, 2010

Docket07-72796

StatusUnpublished

This text of 376 F. App'x 743 (Manzano 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

Manzano v. Holder, 376 F. App'x 743 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Arturo Manzano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Vas quez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The agency correctly concluded that Manzano was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal because of his conviction for discharge of a firearm in a grossly negligent manner in violation of CaLPenal Code § 246.3. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(C); Valerio-Ochoa v. INS, 241 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir.2001).

In light of our disposition, we do not reach Manzano’s remaining contentions.

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 Arturo Manzano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Vas quez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The agency correctly concluded that Manzano was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal because of his conviction for discharge of a firearm in a grossly negligent manner in violation of CaLPenal Code § 246.3. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(C); Valerio-Ochoa v. INS, 241 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir.2001).

In light of our disposition, we do not reach Manzano’s remaining contentions.

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)

376 F. App'x 743, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manzano-v-holder-ca9-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack