Velarde v. Holder

Ninth Circuit

Velarde v. Holder

320 F. App'x 601

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 25, 2009

DocketNo. 07-74508

StatusPublished

This text of 320 F. App'x 601 (Velarde 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

Velarde v. Holder, 320 F. App'x 601 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Gil Delatorre Velarde, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008), and we review de novo due process claims, Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 [602]*602F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner’s successive motion to reopen because the motion was numerically barred and failed to meet any regulatory exception. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(c)(2)-(3).

Petitioner’s contention that the BIA violated due process by failing to consider the evidence of hardship he submitted with the motion therefore fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a due process violation).

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

**

Gil Delatorre Velarde, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008), and we review de novo due process claims, Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 [602]*602F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner’s successive motion to reopen because the motion was numerically barred and failed to meet any regulatory exception. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(c)(2)-(3).

Petitioner’s contention that the BIA violated due process by failing to consider the evidence of hardship he submitted with the motion therefore fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a due process violation).

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)

320 F. App'x 601, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/velarde-v-holder-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack