Sanchez v. Mukasey

Ninth Circuit

Sanchez v. Mukasey

267 F. App'x 510

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 10, 2008

DocketNo. 07-73238

StatusPublished

This text of 267 F. App'x 510 (Sanchez 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

Sanchez v. Mukasey, 267 F. App'x 510 (9th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order adopting and affirming an Immigration Judge’s order denying petitioner Nicanor Guillermo Flores Sanchez’s application for adjustment of status.

Respondent’s unopposed motion for summary disposition is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). Petitioner failed to meet his burden to establish eligibility for adjustment of status pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i) because his visa petition was filed after April 30, 2001. See 8 C.F.R § 1245.10(a)(l)(i). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.

All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal

[511]*511shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.

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

**

This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order adopting and affirming an Immigration Judge’s order denying petitioner Nicanor Guillermo Flores Sanchez’s application for adjustment of status.

Respondent’s unopposed motion for summary disposition is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). Petitioner failed to meet his burden to establish eligibility for adjustment of status pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i) because his visa petition was filed after April 30, 2001. See 8 C.F.R § 1245.10(a)(l)(i). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.

All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal

[511]*511shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.

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)

267 F. App'x 510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanchez-v-mukasey-ca9-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack