738 Fed.Appx. 551 (9th Cir. 2018), 16-70462, Mendoza v. Sessions

Docket Nº:16-70462
Citation:738 Fed.Appx. 551
Party Name:Leonardo Soto MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Attorney:Jose A. Bracamonte, Law Offices of Jose A. Bracamonte, P.C., Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San...
Judge Panel:Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:September 21, 2018
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 551

738 Fed.Appx. 551 (9th Cir. 2018)

Leonardo Soto MENDOZA, Petitioner,

v.

Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-70462

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

September 21, 2018

Submitted September 12, 2018 [*]

Editorial Note:

Governing the citation to unpublished opinions please refer to federal rules of appellate procedure rule 32.1. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 9th Cir. Rule 36-3.

Jose A. Bracamonte, Law Offices of Jose A. Bracamonte, P.C., Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner

M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, Agency No. AXXX-XX0-450

Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM[**]

Leonardo Soto Mendoza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s ("IJ") denial of his motion for administrative closure. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process claims.

Page 552

Gonzalez-Caraveo v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 885, 889 (9th Cir. 2018). We deny the petition for review.

Although the IJ failed to explain his reasons for denying Soto Mendoza’s motion for administrative closure, the BIA reviewed the motion on appeal and sufficiently explained its reasons for denying under the factors applicable at the time of the agency’s final decision. See Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1430 (9th Cir. 1995) ("Any error committed by the IJ will be rendered harmless by the [BIAs] application of the correct legal standard.")...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP