Velasco v. Holder

Ninth Circuit

Velasco v. Holder

360 F. App'x 916

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 30, 2009

Docket06-74217

StatusUnpublished

This text of 360 F. App'x 916 (Velasco 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

Velasco v. Holder, 360 F. App'x 916 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

*917 MEMORANDUM **

Ofelia and Magdalena Flores Velasco, sisters and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s decision denying their motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 782 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen for failure to establish prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal where neither petitioner had a qualifying relative. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D); Ordonez, 345 F.3d at 785 (to establish a prima facie case, the evidence must reveal a reasonable likelihood that the statutory requirements for relief have been satisfied).

To the extent that petitioners challenge the BIA’s September 16, 2005, November 29, 2005, or February 2, 2006, orders, we lack jurisdiction to review them because this petition for review is not timely as to those orders. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

Petitioners’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

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

*917 MEMORANDUM **

Ofelia and Magdalena Flores Velasco, sisters and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s decision denying their motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 782 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen for failure to establish prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal where neither petitioner had a qualifying relative. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D); Ordonez, 345 F.3d at 785 (to establish a prima facie case, the evidence must reveal a reasonable likelihood that the statutory requirements for relief have been satisfied).

To the extent that petitioners challenge the BIA’s September 16, 2005, November 29, 2005, or February 2, 2006, orders, we lack jurisdiction to review them because this petition for review is not timely as to those orders. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

Petitioners’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

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)

360 F. App'x 916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/velasco-v-holder-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack