Maria Socorro Agasino v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 SOCORRO AGASINO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 05-71468
Agency No. A092-177-125
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 8, 2009**
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, RAWLINSON and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Maria Socorro Agasino (Agasino) petitions for review of a Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision denying her petition to reopen her case to
seek relief pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c).
FILED
DEC 10 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Agasino raised the argument that retroactive application of the expanded
“aggravated felony” definition violates due process in her prior petition, so it is
now barred by the doctrine of issue preclusion. See In re Reynoso, 477 F.3d 1117,
1122 (9th Cir. 2007). Likewise, Agasino could have raised her claim that
application of the expanded definition violates her right to equal protection, so that
claim is barried by the doctrine of claim preclusion. See United States v. Bhatia,
545 F.3d 757, 759 (9th Cir. 2008). Because Agasino is not entitled to relief, the
BIA acted within its discretion when it denied Agasino’s motion to reopen
proceedings. See Bunty Ngaeth v. Mukasey, 545 F.3d 796, 799-800 (9th Cir.
2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --