Roa v. Gonzales

Ninth Circuit

Roa v. Gonzales

235 F. App'x 614

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 21, 2007

DocketNos. 05-75163, 06-70181

StatusPublished

This text of 235 F. App'x 614 (Roa 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

Roa v. Gonzales, 235 F. App'x 614 (9th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

In these consolidated petitions for review, Norma Roa, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of two orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals, one dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order and the other denying her motion to reopen. We dismiss petition No. 05-75163 and deny petition No. 06-70181.

Roa acknowledges that her due process contention regarding the IJ’s alleged failure to advise her about cancellation of removal was “not technically raised before the BIA.” As this unexhausted claim is procedural in nature, we lack jurisdiction to review it. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (holding that exhaustion is mandatory and jurisdictional under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1)).

With respect to the denial of Roa’s motion to reopen, we have jurisdiction pursu[615]*615ant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 1159, 1163 (9th Cir.2006) . Roa’s contention that the BIA abused its discretion in denying her motion to reopen is foreclosed by Garcia-Jimenez v. Gonzales, 488 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir.2007) (“[A]n alien who has received § 212(c) relief — at any time — cannot also receive § 1229b relief.”).

No. 05-75163: PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

No. 06-70181: 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, Norma Roa, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of two orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals, one dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order and the other denying her motion to reopen. We dismiss petition No. 05-75163 and deny petition No. 06-70181.

Roa acknowledges that her due process contention regarding the IJ’s alleged failure to advise her about cancellation of removal was “not technically raised before the BIA.” As this unexhausted claim is procedural in nature, we lack jurisdiction to review it. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (holding that exhaustion is mandatory and jurisdictional under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1)).

With respect to the denial of Roa’s motion to reopen, we have jurisdiction pursu[615]*615ant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 1159, 1163 (9th Cir.2006) . Roa’s contention that the BIA abused its discretion in denying her motion to reopen is foreclosed by Garcia-Jimenez v. Gonzales, 488 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir.2007) (“[A]n alien who has received § 212(c) relief — at any time — cannot also receive § 1229b relief.”).

No. 05-75163: PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

No. 06-70181: 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)

235 F. App'x 614, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roa-v-gonzales-ca9-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack