780 Fed.Appx. 531 (9th Cir. 2019), 17-72896, Tiongco v. Barr

Docket Nº:17-72896
Citation:780 Fed.Appx. 531
Party Name:Arsenio MONTOYA TIONGCO, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Attorney:Dixon Wong, Esquire, Counsel, Law Offices of Dixon Wong, Pasadena, CA, for Petitioner Michael Christopher Heyse, Trial Attorney, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homelan...
Judge Panel:Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:October 18, 2019
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 531

780 Fed.Appx. 531 (9th Cir. 2019)

Arsenio MONTOYA TIONGCO, Petitioner,

v.

William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 17-72896

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

October 18, 2019

Submitted October 15, 2019 [*]

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Governing the citation to unpublished opinions please refer to federal rules of appellate procedure rule 32.1.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.

Dixon Wong, Esquire, Counsel, Law Offices of Dixon Wong, Pasadena, CA, for Petitioner

Michael Christopher Heyse, Trial Attorney, 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-XX3-734

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM[**]

Arsenio Montoya Tiongco, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s order denying his appeal from an immigration judge’s ("IJ") decision denying cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not err in denying Montoya Tiongco’s motion to withdraw his previous concession of removability, where he failed to demonstrate any egregious circumstance that would warrant withdrawing his pleadings. See id. at 831-32 (describing egregious circumstances that, if present, justify relieving an alien of his attorney’s admissions).

Accordingly, the agency did not err in sustaining the removability...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP