Rincon v. Gonzales

Ninth Circuit

Rincon v. Gonzales

142 F. App'x 998

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 16, 2005

DocketNo. 04-74463; Agency Nos. A75-681-481, A75-681-482

StatusPublished

This text of 142 F. App'x 998 (Rincon v. Gonzales) 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

Rincon v. Gonzales, 142 F. App'x 998 (9th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Servando Rodriguez Rincon and his wife, Francisca Rodriguez Suarez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of their motion to reopen removal proceedings to apply for protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA properly denied Petitioners’ motion to reopen as numerically barred because Petitioners had previously filed a motion to reopen, and they failed to demonstrate eligibility for any exception to the one motion rule. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)-(3). Accordingly, the BIA’s denial of Petitioners’ motion to reopen was not arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law. See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037,1039 (9th Cir.2002).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit 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

**

Servando Rodriguez Rincon and his wife, Francisca Rodriguez Suarez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of their motion to reopen removal proceedings to apply for protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA properly denied Petitioners’ motion to reopen as numerically barred because Petitioners had previously filed a motion to reopen, and they failed to demonstrate eligibility for any exception to the one motion rule. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)-(3). Accordingly, the BIA’s denial of Petitioners’ motion to reopen was not arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law. See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037,1039 (9th Cir.2002).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 F. App'x 998, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rincon-v-gonzales-ca9-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack