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)
12-72042•Massiell De Jesus Bermudez v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General
12-72042Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit30.09.2013
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MASSIELL DE JESUS BERMUDEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-72042
Agency No. A039-729-898
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 24, 2013**
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Massiell De Jesus Bermudez, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing her
appeal from a decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying her motion to
continue her removal proceedings. We dismiss the petition for review.
FILED
SEP 30 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
12-72042 2
Bermudez does not challenge the IJ’s finding that she is removable under
8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) due to her conviction for petty theft with priors under
California Penal Code § 666. Her removability on this basis limits our jurisdiction
to constitutional claims and questions of law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C)-(D).
Bermudez’s contentions that the IJ should have continued her removal
proceedings pending the outcome of her state-court petition for post-conviction
relief and that the BIA did not properly consider the decision in Padilla v.
Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010), when adjudicating her appeal are not sufficiently
colorable to invoke our jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). See
Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005) (“To be colorable
in this context, the alleged violation need not be substantial, but the claim must
have some possible validity.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.