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)
22-1467•Julio Montes-Ramirez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General
22-1467Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit23.08.2023
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JULIO MONTES-RAMIREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-1467
Agency No.
A072-228-513
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 21, 2023**
Portland, Oregon
Before: BENNETT, VANDYKE, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Julio Montes-Ramirez petitions for review of a decision by the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which determined that the immigration judge
(“IJ”) lacked jurisdiction to reopen his reinstated prior removal order. Our
jurisdiction is “limited to determining whether the BIA erred in concluding that
the IJ lacked jurisdiction.” Bravo-Bravo v. Garland, 54 F.4th 634, 640 (9th Cir.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not
precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
AUG 23 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-- 1 of 2 --
2 22-1467
2022).
Bravo-Bravo controls. There, the petitioner made the same arguments
that Montes-Ramirez makes here: (1) the IJ had jurisdiction to consider his
motion to reopen the reinstated prior removal order because “his underlying
conviction, which served as the sole predicate for his removal, was expunged”
on constitutional grounds, and (2) the agency erred by failing to exercise its sua
sponte reopening authority. Id. We rejected both arguments. We held that 8
U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5) stripped the IJ and BIA of jurisdiction to consider the
petitioner’s motion to reopen based on the expunged conviction. Id. We also
held that the agency’s sua sponte reopening authority under the regulations
could not trump § 1231(a)(5)’s jurisdictional bar. Id. at 640–41. Thus, the BIA
here correctly determined that the IJ lacked jurisdiction under § 1231(a)(5).
The motion for a stay of removal is denied. Dkt. No. 3. The temporary
stay of removal is lifted.
PETITION DENIED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.