Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
08-71983•Maria Guadalupe Echeveste De Perez v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General
08-71983Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit18.09.2012
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA GUADALUPE ECHEVESTE DE
PEREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71983
Agency No. A077-122-052
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Maria Guadalupe Echeveste De Perez, a native and citizen of Mexico,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have
FILED
SEP 18 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
08-71983 2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Vasquez
de Alcantar v. Holder, 645 F.3d 1097, 1099 (9th Cir. 2011), and we deny the
petition for review.
Perez’s contention that her statements reflected in the Form I-213 (Record of
Deportable/Inadmissible Alien) were obtained in violation of 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(c) is
not persuasive because she was not in formal proceedings at the time she made her
statements. See Samayoa-Martinez v. Holder, 558 F.3d 897, 901-02 (9th Cir.
2009) (holding that protections under section 287.3(c) apply only after a Notice to
Appear has been filed in the immigration court).
The BIA properly concluded that Perez was ineligible for cancellation of
removal because she lacked seven years of continuous residence in the United
States after being “admitted in any status.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(2); Vasquez
De Alcantar, 645 F.3d 1097, 1100-01 (9th Cir. 2011) (filing an application for
adjustment of status does not constitute “admitted in any status”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.