Mohammed v. Mukasey

Ninth Circuit

Mohammed v. Mukasey

287 F. App'x 11

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 8, 2008

DocketNo. 04-74839

StatusPublished

This text of 287 F. App'x 11 (Mohammed 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

Mohammed v. Mukasey, 287 F. App'x 11 (9th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Ishmeal Mohammed, a native and citizen of Trinidad and Tobago, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his request for a § 212(h) waiver, and denying his motion to reopen based on the later expungement of his conviction for attempted fraud. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of motions to reopen. Maravilla Maravilla v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 855, 857 (9th Cir.2004) (per curiam). We deny the petition for review.

Mohammed has waived any challenge to the BIA’s determination that he is statutorily ineligible for a 212(h) waiver. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Mohammed’s motion to reopen because Mohammed’s attempted fraud conviction despite its expungement is valid for immigration purposes. See Nath v. Gonzales, 467 F.3d 1185, 1188-89 (9th Cir. 2006) (a vacated conviction can serve as the basis for removal if the conviction was vacated for equitable, rehabilitation or immigration hardship reasons); see also Mu[13]*13rillo-Espinoza v. INS, 261 F.3d 771, 774 (9th Cir.2001).

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

**

Ishmeal Mohammed, a native and citizen of Trinidad and Tobago, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his request for a § 212(h) waiver, and denying his motion to reopen based on the later expungement of his conviction for attempted fraud. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of motions to reopen. Maravilla Maravilla v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 855, 857 (9th Cir.2004) (per curiam). We deny the petition for review.

Mohammed has waived any challenge to the BIA’s determination that he is statutorily ineligible for a 212(h) waiver. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Mohammed’s motion to reopen because Mohammed’s attempted fraud conviction despite its expungement is valid for immigration purposes. See Nath v. Gonzales, 467 F.3d 1185, 1188-89 (9th Cir. 2006) (a vacated conviction can serve as the basis for removal if the conviction was vacated for equitable, rehabilitation or immigration hardship reasons); see also Mu[13]*13rillo-Espinoza v. INS, 261 F.3d 771, 774 (9th Cir.2001).

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)

287 F. App'x 11, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mohammed-v-mukasey-ca9-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack