Valdellon v. Holder

Ninth Circuit

Valdellon v. Holder

330 F. App'x 143

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 3, 2009

DocketNo. 05-70875

StatusPublished

This text of 330 F. App'x 143 (Valdellon v. Holder) 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

Valdellon v. Holder, 330 F. App'x 143 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Mercedita Dial Valdellon, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her motion to reopen for adjustment of status. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003). We grant the petition for review and remand.

When considering Valdellon’s appeal, the BIA did not have the benefit of our recent decision in Ahmed v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 768, 772 (9th Cir.2008), which held that the agency may not deny a motion to reopen for adjustment of status based solely on the government’s objection. We therefore grant the petition for review and remand.

Valdellon’s motion to supplement the record is denied as moot.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

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

**

Mercedita Dial Valdellon, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her motion to reopen for adjustment of status. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003). We grant the petition for review and remand.

When considering Valdellon’s appeal, the BIA did not have the benefit of our recent decision in Ahmed v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 768, 772 (9th Cir.2008), which held that the agency may not deny a motion to reopen for adjustment of status based solely on the government’s objection. We therefore grant the petition for review and remand.

Valdellon’s motion to supplement the record is denied as moot.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

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)

330 F. App'x 143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valdellon-v-holder-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack