Isabela Manuel-Miguel 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 Honorable Thomas J. Whelan, United States District Judge for**
the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ISABELA MANUEL-MIGUEL,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70271
Agency No. A070-172-386
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted September 1, 2010
Seattle, Washington
Before: HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and WHELAN, District
Judge.**
Isabel Manuel-Miguel, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of an order by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”)
FILED
SEP 09 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
reinstating her prior order of deportation pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5). We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and we affirm.
The application of § 1231(a)(5) to Manuel is not impermissibly retroactive.
Manuel departed, entered, and remained the United States while subject to an in
absentia order of deportation after the effective date of the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”), Pub. L. 104-208,
div. C, 110 Stat. 3009-546. Thus, § 1231(a)(5) does not impermissibly “‘impair
rights [Manuel] possessed when [she] acted, increase [her] liability for past
conduct, or impose new duties with respect to transactions already completed.’”
Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales, 548 U.S. 30, 37 (2006) (quoting Landgraf v. USI
Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 280 (1994)).
Although Manuel invokes her expectation interests in seeking relief based
on her 1993 asylum application, her argument is unavailing. Manuel improperly
filed for asylum at the Portland asylum office even though she was already in
deportation proceedings and was thus required to file her asylum application in the
Los Angeles Immigration Court. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.4(c)(1) (1993). In addition,
Manuel never sought to reopen her proceedings to seek asylum after entry of her
1993 in absentia order. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.4(c)(2) (1993). Manuel’s application
does not establish reliance interests for the purposes of the retroactivity analysis.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
For similar reasons, we need not address Manuel’s argument that
§ 1231(a)(5) does not bar her from seeking asylum. Although 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(1) guarantees Manuel a right to apply for asylum “irrespective of [her]
status,” no asylum application was properly filed. Once Manuel was put in
deportation proceedings in 1993, she was required to file her application for relief
in immigration court, see 8 C.F.R. § 208.4(c)(1) (1993); once the immigration
judge ordered deportation, Manuel was required to seek asylum or other relief in
conjunction with a motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.4(c)(2) (1993); see also 8
C.F.R. § 1208.4(b)(3)(ii). Manuel pursued neither of these avenues. As a result,
regardless of the reinstatement statute, the asylum office never had authority to
grant Manuel’s requests for relief in 1993 and 2006.
Manuel’s due process arguments have no traction as she cannot show
prejudice. Manuel conceded that she met the predicate elements of the statute:
namely, (1) alienage; (2) a prior order of deportation; and (3) illegal reentry into
the United States. Because Manuel “does not challenge any of the three relevant
determinations underlying a reinstatement order,” she cannot show any plausible
grounds for relief. Padilla v. Ashcroft, 334 F.3d 921, 925 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal
quotation marks omitted); accord Morales-Izquierdo v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 484,
495-96 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc).

-- 3 of 4 --

4
Finally, Manuel’s claim for nunc pro tunc relief fails. Manuel’s request for a
remand on her asylum claim is unavailing as she can point to no agency error that
“result[ed] in [her] being deprived of the opportunity to seek a particular form of
deportation relief.” Edwards v. INS, 393 F.3d 299, 311 (2d Cir. 2004).
Manuel’s request for an opportunity to seek retroactive admission fails as
well. Manuel does not meet a necessary criterion for a waiver—namely, the
requirement of remaining outside the United States for ten consecutive years after
her 1993 removal order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(ii); Gonzales v. DHS, 508
F.3d 1227, 1242 (9th Cir. 2007).
The petition for review is DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --