Perez Rocha v. Holder

Ninth Circuit

Perez Rocha v. Holder

362 F. App'x 710

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 19, 2010

Docket07-70550

StatusUnpublished

This text of 362 F. App'x 710 (Perez Rocha 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

Perez Rocha v. Holder, 362 F. App'x 710 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Patricia Perez Rocha, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reconsider its decision denying her motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the petition for review.

Nearly four months after the BIA issued its final decision, on June 29, 2006, Rocha filed a motion to reconsider, where she asserted an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The BIA denied the motion because it was untimely, because Rocha failed to establish that equitable tolling applied, and because Rocha failed to show that she complied with Matter of Lozada, 19 I & N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988) or that she was prejudiced by her former attorney’s actions. Rocha fails to challenge any of these findings. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not raised in the opening brief are deemed waived).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Rocha’s contentions regarding the BIA’s May 26, 2004 order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for cancellation of removal, because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

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 **

Patricia Perez Rocha, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reconsider its decision denying her motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the petition for review.

Nearly four months after the BIA issued its final decision, on June 29, 2006, Rocha filed a motion to reconsider, where she asserted an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The BIA denied the motion because it was untimely, because Rocha failed to establish that equitable tolling applied, and because Rocha failed to show that she complied with Matter of Lozada, 19 I & N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988) or that she was prejudiced by her former attorney’s actions. Rocha fails to challenge any of these findings. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not raised in the opening brief are deemed waived).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Rocha’s contentions regarding the BIA’s May 26, 2004 order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for cancellation of removal, because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

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 710, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perez-rocha-v-holder-ca9-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack