From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wiepert v. Mukasey

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 24, 2008
297 F. App'x 651 (9th Cir. 2008)

Opinion

No. 04-72466.

Submitted October 16, 2008.

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

Filed October 24, 2008.

Edgardo Quintanilla, Esq., Attorney at Law, Sherman Oaks, CA, for Petitioner.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Janice K. Redfern, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A77-101-725.

Before: LEAVY, RYMER, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

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


Lily Audrey Wiepert petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order summarily affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision finding Wiepert removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(3)(D). We review factual findings for substantial evidence, Anita v. INS, 80 F.3d 1389, 1393 (9th Cir. 1996), and review de novo questions of law, Montero-Martinez v. Ashcroft, 277 F.3d 1137, 1145 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny the petition for review.

Wiepert testified that she knowingly used a fraudulent U.S. birth certificate to apply for a U.S. passport. Substantial evidence supports the IJ's conclusion that Weipert is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(3)(D) ("[a]ny alien who falsely represents, or has falsely represented, himself to be a citizen of the United States for any purpose or benefit under this chapter . . . or any Federal or State law is deportable.").

Contrary to Wiepert's contentions, she was properly charged with removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(3)(D) rather than 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(c)(ii), because she had been admitted. See Toro-Romero v. Ashcroft, 382 F.3d 930, 936 (9th Cir. 2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.


Summaries of

Wiepert v. Mukasey

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 24, 2008
297 F. App'x 651 (9th Cir. 2008)
Case details for

Wiepert v. Mukasey

Case Details

Full title:Lily Audrey WIEPERT, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Oct 24, 2008

Citations

297 F. App'x 651 (9th Cir. 2008)