Ventura Canales v. Mukasey

Ninth Circuit

Ventura Canales v. Mukasey

398 F. App'x 231

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 1, 2010

Docket07-72411

StatusUnpublished

This text of 398 F. App'x 231 (Ventura Canales 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

Ventura Canales v. Mukasey, 398 F. App'x 231 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

German Yovany Ventura Canales, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his motion to reopen depor *232 tation proceedings conducted in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Chaidez v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 1079, 1082 (9th Cir.2007), and for abuse of discretion the denial of motions to reopen, Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002). We grant in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The IJ abused his discretion by applying to Ventura Canales’ Order to Show Cause a presumption of proper delivery that applies only to notices of hearing. See Chaidez, 486 F.3d at 1085. We remand for the BIA to apply the proper legal standard when determining whether the government met its burden of establishing proper service. See generally INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-17, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam); see also Chaidez, 486 F.3d at 1087.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153,1159 (9th Cir.2002).

Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED in part; DISMISSED in part; and 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 **

German Yovany Ventura Canales, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his motion to reopen depor *232 tation proceedings conducted in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Chaidez v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 1079, 1082 (9th Cir.2007), and for abuse of discretion the denial of motions to reopen, Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002). We grant in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The IJ abused his discretion by applying to Ventura Canales’ Order to Show Cause a presumption of proper delivery that applies only to notices of hearing. See Chaidez, 486 F.3d at 1085. We remand for the BIA to apply the proper legal standard when determining whether the government met its burden of establishing proper service. See generally INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-17, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam); see also Chaidez, 486 F.3d at 1087.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153,1159 (9th Cir.2002).

Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED in part; DISMISSED in part; and 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)

398 F. App'x 231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ventura-canales-v-mukasey-ca9-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack