Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, a Mexican citizen petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision that found him removable and denied his applications for registry and adjustment of status. The court has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, as the removal is not predicated on a covered criminal act. The BIA deemed the petitioner inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) due to two marijuana possession convictions, thus rendering him ineligible for registry or adjustment of status as per 8 U.S.C. §§ 1259 and 1255(a)(2). The petitioner also asserted claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, translation issues, and concerns about the late introduction of conviction records, but these claims were dismissed due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies, which is a prerequisite for judicial review. The petitioner's request to stay the mandate for a motion to reopen was waived, as it was not mentioned in his initial brief. Ultimately, the court denied the petition in part and dismissed it in part, with the decision not to be published or cited except under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Exhaustion of Administrative Remediessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The petitioner failed to exhaust his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and translation issues, which are necessary for the court to have jurisdiction over these claims.
Reasoning: Orozco claims ineffective assistance from prior counsel but has not exhausted this claim, which is required for review.
Inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The petitioner is found inadmissible due to past marijuana possession convictions, which make him ineligible for registry or adjustment of status.
Reasoning: The court, reviewing for substantial evidence, supports the BIA’s conclusion that Orozco is inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) due to two marijuana possession convictions in Texas from 1983 and 1993.
Jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court has jurisdiction to review the BIA's findings because the petitioner's removal is not based on a covered criminal act under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C).
Reasoning: The government's argument that jurisdiction is lacking under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) fails. Judicial review is only barred if an alien is removed based on a covered criminal act.
Waiver of Issues Not Raised in Initial Briefsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The petitioner waived his request to stay the mandate for a motion to reopen because it was not raised in his initial brief.
Reasoning: Orozco's request to stay the mandate for a motion to reopen is deemed waived, as it was not raised in his initial brief.