Rojas v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., PALMA-ROJA
| Decision Date | 04 April 2001 |
| Docket Number | P,PALMA-ROJA,No. 97-70232,97-70232 |
| Citation | 244 F.3d 1191 |
| Parties | (9th Cir. 2001) REVOCATOetitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Lisa Ellen Seifert, Seifert Law Offices, Olympia, Washington, for the petitioner.
Lorri L. Shealy, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., for the respondent.
Petition to Review a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals. INS No. A39 795 464.
Before: David R. Thompson, Stephen S. Trott, and Richard A. Paez, Circuit Judges.
Palma-Rojas petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") denying him relief from deportation under 212(c) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act ("INA"), 8 U.S.C. 1182(c) (repealed in 1996). We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Our jurisdiction in this case is governed by the transitional rules of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-546 (Sept. 30, 1996) ("IIRIRA") because immigration proceedings were initiated by the INS before IIRIRA's general effective date of April 1, 1997, and the final deportation or exclusion order was filed after October 30, 1996. See IIRIRA 309(c); Magana-Pizano v. INS, 200 F.3d 603, 607 (9th Cir. 1999).
IIRIRA 309(c)(4)(E) provides "there shall be no appeal of any discretionary decision under section 212(c), 212(h), 212(i), 244, or 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act ()." Citing 309(c)(4)(E), in Kalaw v. INS, we dismissed for lack of jurisdiction a petition for review of a discretionary decision by the BIA denying suspension of deportation under INA 244. 133 F.3d 1147, 1150-52 (9th Cir. 1997) ("(the plain language of IIRIRA precludes our direct review of the Attorney General's discretionary decisions").
Petitioner argues that 309(c)(4)(E) does not apply here because the BIA failed to exercise its discretion when it denied relief under 212(c). Although 309(c)(4)(E) does not deprive this court of jurisdiction to review" those elements of statutory eligibility which do not involve the exercise of discretion," id. at 1150, the BIA exercised its discretion in this case by balancing the equities in favor of Petitioner with the adverse matters in the record. The BIA denied relief because it did "not find that the evidence of employment history, good record in prison, and family...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Flores v. Barr
...arguing that we lacked jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of § 212(c) relief. See, e.g. , Palma-Rojas v. INS , 244 F.3d 1191, 1192 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam). Flores, represented by the same attorney, never responded. We granted the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction ......
-
Martinez-Barrientos v. Holder
...waiver); Bermudez v. Holder, 586 F.3d 1167, 1169 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (cancellation of removal); Palma-Rojas v. INS, 244 F.3d 1191, 1192 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (former section 212(c) waiver). Martinez-Barrientos raises no colorable constitutional claim or question of law that ......
-
Dajani v. Holder
...v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Palma-Rojas v. INS, 244 F.3d 1191, 1192 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (holding that this Court lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA's denial of an application for relief under § 212(c) wh......
-
Lagos-Lagos v. Barr
...of a question of law." Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir. 2009).Such a claim is unreviewable. See Palma-Rojas v. INS, 244 F.3d 1191, 1192 (9th Cir. 2001) (no jurisdiction over claim where BIA balanced the equities in favor of petitioner against the adverse matters because......