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)
08-71183•Martha Mendoza v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General
08-71183Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit28.04.2015
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTHA MENDOZA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71183
Agency No. A089-521-262
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Department of Homeland Security
Submitted April 22, 2015**
Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Martha Mendoza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an
order of the Department of Homeland Security reinstating her prior expedited order
of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
FILED
APR 28 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).
-- 1 of 2 --
questions of law. Duran Gonzales v. DHS, 508 F.3d 1227, 1232 (9th Cir. 2007).
We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Mendoza’s challenge to the reinstatement order is foreclosed by this court’s
decision in Duran Gonzales, as Mendoza concedes she filed her application for a
waiver of inadmissibility well after Duran Gonzales became controlling law in this
circuit. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a)(2), (i)(2)(A) (alien must be admissible to adjust
status); Duran Gonzales, 508 F.3d at 1242 (“[P]laintiffs as a matter of law are not
eligible to adjust their status because they are ineligible to receive I-212 waivers
[of inadmissibility].”)
We lack jurisdiction to consider Mendoza’s contention that her case
warrants a favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v.
Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order).
Mendoza’s request to hold her case in abeyance pending a decision in
Duran Gonzales v. DHS, 659 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2011) is denied as moot.
Mendoza’s remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
08-71183 2
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.