Rolon-Morales v. Mukasey

Ninth Circuit

Rolon-Morales v. Mukasey

292 F. App'x 626

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 9, 2008

DocketNo. 06-71553

StatusPublished

This text of 292 F. App'x 626 (Rolon-Morales v. Mukasey) 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

Rolon-Morales v. Mukasey, 292 F. App'x 626 (9th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Lucio Rolon-Morales, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, see Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.

Rolan-Morales has failed to challenge the agency’s determination that his asylum application is time-barred, which is dispositive. He also failed to support with argument his contention that he is entitled to CAT protection. He has therefore waived these issues. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (stating that issues not supported by argument are deemed waived).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Rolan-Morales is not eligible for withholding of removal because Rolan-Morales’ fear that he would be targeted by corrupt Mexican officials is highly speculative. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir.2003) (declining to credit a speculative future persecution claim). Accordingly, Rolan-Morales’s claim for withholding of removal fails.

[628]*628Rolan-Morales’ contention that the retroactive application of the expanded aggravated felony definition in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43), violates due process is foreclosed by our precedent. See Aragon-Ayon v. INS, 206 F.3d 847, 853 (9th Cir. 2000) (“We are satisfied that Congress intended the 1996 amendments to make the aggravated felony definition apply retroactively to all defined offenses whenever committed.... ”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid-cd by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Lucio Rolon-Morales, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, see Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.

Rolan-Morales has failed to challenge the agency’s determination that his asylum application is time-barred, which is dispositive. He also failed to support with argument his contention that he is entitled to CAT protection. He has therefore waived these issues. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (stating that issues not supported by argument are deemed waived).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Rolan-Morales is not eligible for withholding of removal because Rolan-Morales’ fear that he would be targeted by corrupt Mexican officials is highly speculative. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir.2003) (declining to credit a speculative future persecution claim). Accordingly, Rolan-Morales’s claim for withholding of removal fails.

[628]*628Rolan-Morales’ contention that the retroactive application of the expanded aggravated felony definition in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43), violates due process is foreclosed by our precedent. See Aragon-Ayon v. INS, 206 F.3d 847, 853 (9th Cir. 2000) (“We are satisfied that Congress intended the 1996 amendments to make the aggravated felony definition apply retroactively to all defined offenses whenever committed.... ”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid-cd by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 F. App'x 626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rolon-morales-v-mukasey-ca9-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack