From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vizcarra v. Mukasey

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jul 8, 2008
285 F. App'x 382 (9th Cir. 2008)

Opinion

No. 04-71146.

Submitted June 18, 2008.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed July 8, 2008.

Joseph M. Bacho, Law Offices of Joseph M. Bacho, El Centro, CA, for Petitioner.

Regina Byrd, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Mary L. Trippler, Office of The U.S. Attorney, Minneapolis, MN, for Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A78-367-131.

Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


Josefina Vizcarra Arrendondo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order summarily affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying her application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

The IJ denied Vizcarra Arrendondo's application for cancellation of removal for failure to show the requisite hardship, and the BIA summarily affirmed. Vizcarra Arrendondo filed a timely petition for review of that order with this court. Vizcarra Arrendondo then filed a motion to reopen to seek adjustment of status, the BIA denied, and Vizcarra Arrendondo did not petition for review of that order with this court.

The petition for review is timely only as to the BIA's first order, though we lack jurisdiction to review that order because it is based on a discretionary hardship determination. See Martinet-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir. 2005). In her opening brief, Vizcarra Arrendondo challenges only the BIA's second order denying reopening, yet we lack jurisdiction to review it because Vizcarra Arrendondo did not file a petition for review of that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Martinez-Semno v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir. 1996).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.


Summaries of

Vizcarra v. Mukasey

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jul 8, 2008
285 F. App'x 382 (9th Cir. 2008)
Case details for

Vizcarra v. Mukasey

Case Details

Full title:Josefina VIZCARRA ARRENDONDO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jul 8, 2008

Citations

285 F. App'x 382 (9th Cir. 2008)