Misael Sanchez-Lopez v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Ninth Circuit

Misael Sanchez-Lopez v. Eric Holder, Jr.

550 F. App'x 392

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 18, 2013

Docket10-73766

StatusUnpublished

This text of 550 F. App'x 392 (Misael Sanchez-Lopez v. Eric Holder, Jr.) 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

Misael Sanchez-Lopez v. Eric Holder, Jr., 550 F. App'x 392 (9th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Misael Sanchez-Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo mixed questions of law and fact, and factual determinations underlying this inquiry are reviewed for clear error. United States v. Diaz-Juarez, 299 F.3d 1138, 1140 (9th Cir.2002). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not clearly err in finding that the officer did not stop Sanchez-Lopez solely because of his race and that legitimate, non-racial factors motivated the officer’s stop. See United States v. Manzo-Jurado, 457 F.3d 928, 936 (9th Cir. 2006); Diaz-Juarez, 299 F.3d at 1142; cf. Gonzalez-Rivera v. INS, 22 F.3d 1441 (9th Cir.1994). Accordingly, the agency did not err in admitting Sanchez-Lopez’s Form I-213 where he did not demonstrate that the Form 1-213 was obtained through an egregious violation of the Fourth Amendment. See Orhorhaghe v. INS, 38 F.3d 488, 492-93 (9th Cir.1994).

Sanchez-Lopez’s challenge to 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(i) is foreclosed by Garfias-Rodriguez v. Holder, 702 F.3d 504, 523-28 (9th Cir.2012) (en banc).

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that Lopez-Sanchez failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his qualifying relative. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir.2009). Lopez-Sanchez’s contention that the agency applied the wrong legal standard is not supported by the record and does not amount to a colorable constitutional or legal challenge. See id. at 978-80 (this court lacks jurisdiction over abuse of discretion challenges to discretionary determinations cloaked as constitutional or legal questions).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Misael Sanchez-Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo mixed questions of law and fact, and factual determinations underlying this inquiry are reviewed for clear error. United States v. Diaz-Juarez, 299 F.3d 1138, 1140 (9th Cir.2002). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not clearly err in finding that the officer did not stop Sanchez-Lopez solely because of his race and that legitimate, non-racial factors motivated the officer’s stop. See United States v. Manzo-Jurado, 457 F.3d 928, 936 (9th Cir. 2006); Diaz-Juarez, 299 F.3d at 1142; cf. Gonzalez-Rivera v. INS, 22 F.3d 1441 (9th Cir.1994). Accordingly, the agency did not err in admitting Sanchez-Lopez’s Form I-213 where he did not demonstrate that the Form 1-213 was obtained through an egregious violation of the Fourth Amendment. See Orhorhaghe v. INS, 38 F.3d 488, 492-93 (9th Cir.1994).

Sanchez-Lopez’s challenge to 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(i) is foreclosed by Garfias-Rodriguez v. Holder, 702 F.3d 504, 523-28 (9th Cir.2012) (en banc).

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that Lopez-Sanchez failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his qualifying relative. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir.2009). Lopez-Sanchez’s contention that the agency applied the wrong legal standard is not supported by the record and does not amount to a colorable constitutional or legal challenge. See id. at 978-80 (this court lacks jurisdiction over abuse of discretion challenges to discretionary determinations cloaked as constitutional or legal questions).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

550 F. App'x 392, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/misael-sanchez-lopez-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack