Narrative Opinion Summary
Rafael Espinoza-Campos and Maria Urbana Medina De Espinoza, Mexican nationals, petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order that deemed them removable. The court has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and reviews constitutional challenges to the BIA's application of federal statutes de novo. The petitioners argued that the permanent rules established by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) are retroactively applied in a manner that is impermissible. However, the court found this argument to be precluded by its prior ruling in Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft. Consequently, the petition for review is denied. This decision is not intended for publication and cannot be cited in future cases within this circuit except as permitted by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Jurisdiction Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court confirms its jurisdiction to review constitutional challenges to the BIA's application of federal statutes.
Reasoning: The court has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and reviews constitutional challenges to the BIA's application of federal statutes de novo.
Non-Publication and Citation Restrictionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision is identified as non-precedential and subject to citation restrictions under Ninth Circuit rules.
Reasoning: This decision is not intended for publication and cannot be cited in future cases within this circuit except as permitted by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Retroactive Application of IIRIRAsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court addresses the petitioners' challenge to the retroactive application of the IIRIRA's permanent rules and finds the argument precluded by precedent.
Reasoning: The petitioners argued that the permanent rules established by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) are retroactively applied in a manner that is impermissible. However, the court found this argument to be precluded by its prior ruling in Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft.