Carrillo-Rivera v. I.N.S.

Full title: Encarnacion CARRILLO-RIVERA, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Feb 16, 2001

4 F. App'x 409 (9th Cir. 2001)

Opinion

4 Fed.Appx. 409 (9th Cir. 2001) Encarnacion CARRILLO-RIVERA, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. No. 99-71335. INS No. A72-697-632. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. February 16, 2001

Argued and Submitted November 2, 2000.

As Corrected March 12, 2001.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Alien petitioned for review of final order of deportation entered by Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The Court of Appeals held that transitional stop-time rule of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) applied to alien detained before enactment of IIRIRA.

Petition denied.

Page 410.

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Before B. FLETCHER, O'SCANNLAIN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ^*

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Encarnacion Carrillo-Rivera ("Petitioner") petitions for review of his final order of deportation entered by the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") on June 2, 1999. The facts and prior proceedings are known to the parties; they are not restated herein except as necessary.

Petitioner was served with an order to show cause ("OSC") on September 20, 1994--approximately five years after he entered the United States. At a hearing on March 25, 1997, the Immigration Judge granted Petitioner's application for suspension of deportation. The Immigration and Naturalization Service appealed to the BIA. On appeal, the BIA determined that Petitioner had failed to meet the continuous physical presence requirement before being served with the OSC and thus was statutorily ineligible for suspension.

Petitioner contends that he was eligible for suspension of deportation and challenges the BIA's decision that the "stop-time rule"--a new continuous physical presence requirement set forth in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, 110 Stat. 3009-625 ("IIRIRA")--bars such relief in his case. Petitioner's arguments challenging the application of the stop-time rule are foreclosed by our recent decision in Ram v. INS, No. 99-70918 (9th Cir. filed Feb. 8, 2001).

PETITION DENIED.