Morales-Maravilla v. Holder

Ninth Circuit

Morales-Maravilla v. Holder

362 F. App'x 775

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 20, 2010

Docket06-74374, 06-75511

StatusUnpublished

This text of 362 F. App'x 775 (Morales-Maravilla 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

Morales-Maravilla v. Holder, 362 F. App'x 775 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

In these consolidated petitions for review, Armando Morales-Maravilla, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) August 15, 2006, order dismissing his appeals from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for cancellation of removal and his subsequent motion to reconsider, and the BIA’s November 21, 2006, order denying his motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider, and de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). In No. 06-74374, we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review, and in No. 06-75511, we deny the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision denying Morales-Maravilla’s application for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)®; Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.2003).

Morales-Maravilla’s claim that the IJ violated due process by admitting police reports from his 1998 domestic conviction fails because the reports were probative, and their admission was not fundamentally unfair. See Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310-11 (9th Cir.1995) (noting that “[t]he sole test for admission of evidence [in a *777 deportation proceeding] is whether the evidence is probative and its admission is fundamentally fair”).

We reject Morales-Maravilla’s challenge to the BIA’s orders denying reconsideration, because the motions failed to identify any error of fact or law in the underlying orders. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1180 n. 2 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc).

Morales-Maravilla’s remaining contentions lack merit.

IN No. 06-74374: PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

IN No. 06-75511: 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 **

In these consolidated petitions for review, Armando Morales-Maravilla, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) August 15, 2006, order dismissing his appeals from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for cancellation of removal and his subsequent motion to reconsider, and the BIA’s November 21, 2006, order denying his motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider, and de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). In No. 06-74374, we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review, and in No. 06-75511, we deny the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision denying Morales-Maravilla’s application for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)®; Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.2003).

Morales-Maravilla’s claim that the IJ violated due process by admitting police reports from his 1998 domestic conviction fails because the reports were probative, and their admission was not fundamentally unfair. See Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310-11 (9th Cir.1995) (noting that “[t]he sole test for admission of evidence [in a *777 deportation proceeding] is whether the evidence is probative and its admission is fundamentally fair”).

We reject Morales-Maravilla’s challenge to the BIA’s orders denying reconsideration, because the motions failed to identify any error of fact or law in the underlying orders. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1180 n. 2 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc).

Morales-Maravilla’s remaining contentions lack merit.

IN No. 06-74374: PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

IN No. 06-75511: 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)

362 F. App'x 775, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morales-maravilla-v-holder-ca9-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack