Raul Perez-Verduzco v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Ninth Circuit

Raul Perez-Verduzco v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

127 F.3d 1106, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 35585

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 14, 1997

Docket96-70321

StatusUnpublished

This text of 127 F.3d 1106 (Raul Perez-Verduzco v. Immigration and Naturalization Service) 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

Raul Perez-Verduzco v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 127 F.3d 1106, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 35585 (9th Cir. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

127 F.3d 1106

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Raul PEREZ-VERDUZCO, Petitioner,
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 96-70321.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 8, 1997**
Decided Oct. 14, 1997.

Before PREGERSON, D.W. NELSON, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER*

Section 440(a) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), 8 U.S.C. 1105a(a)(10), precludes judicial review of final orders of deportation, including motions to reopen deportation proceedings to apply for discretionary relief, of aliens convicted of certain criminal offenses. Sarmadi v. INS, 121 F.3d 1319, 1322 (9th Cir.1997); Duldulao v. INS, 90 F.3d 396, 399 (9th Cir.1996). Petitioner Raul Perez-Verduzco was found deportable for being convicted of a controlled substance violation. See 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). We, therefore, dismiss this petition for lack of jurisdiction.

**

The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without argument pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 34(a) and Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3

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

127 F.3d 1106

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Raul PEREZ-VERDUZCO, Petitioner,
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 96-70321.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 8, 1997**
Decided Oct. 14, 1997.

Before PREGERSON, D.W. NELSON, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER*

Section 440(a) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), 8 U.S.C. 1105a(a)(10), precludes judicial review of final orders of deportation, including motions to reopen deportation proceedings to apply for discretionary relief, of aliens convicted of certain criminal offenses. Sarmadi v. INS, 121 F.3d 1319, 1322 (9th Cir.1997); Duldulao v. INS, 90 F.3d 396, 399 (9th Cir.1996). Petitioner Raul Perez-Verduzco was found deportable for being convicted of a controlled substance violation. See 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). We, therefore, dismiss this petition for lack of jurisdiction.

**

The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without argument pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 34(a) and Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 F.3d 1106, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 35585, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raul-perez-verduzco-v-immigration-and-naturalizati-ca9-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack