Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves a petition for review by an individual seeking cancellation of removal, which was affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The petition is dismissed in part and denied in part due to jurisdictional issues. The court identifies that it lacks jurisdiction to review the denial of a motion to reopen because the petitioner did not file a separate petition for that aspect, as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) and supported by precedent in Martinez-Serrano v. INS. The petitioner's remaining argument challenges the equal protection implications of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B), alleging disproportionate impact on Hispanic aliens. However, the court retains jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) but ultimately finds the claim unsubstantiated, as the petitioner fails to demonstrate that the statute is irrational, referencing Tovar-Landin v. Ashcroft. Consequently, the decision is not suitable for publication and cannot be cited within the circuit except under specific rules. The final outcome is that the petition is dismissed in part and denied in part, with no relief granted to the petitioner.
Legal Issues Addressed
Equal Protection Challenge under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Serrano Moneada's claim that the statute violates equal protection is rejected because he fails to prove that the statute is irrational.
Reasoning: The only remaining argument pertains to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B), which Serrano Moneada claims violates equal protection by disproportionately affecting Hispanic aliens. The court acknowledges jurisdiction over this claim under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), but finds the claim unsubstantiated as Serrano Moneada fails to demonstrate that § 1182(a)(9)(B) is 'wholly irrational,' referencing Tovar-Landin v. Ashcroft.
Jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA's denial of Serrano Moneada's motion to reopen because a separate petition for review was not filed.
Reasoning: The court lacks jurisdiction to consider most of Serrano Moneada's arguments, specifically those related to the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen, as he did not file a separate petition for that review, in accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) and the precedent set in Martinez-Serrano v. INS.
Publication and Citation Restrictionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's disposition is not suitable for publication and cannot be cited in this circuit except under specific Ninth Circuit rules.
Reasoning: The disposition is deemed not suitable for publication and cannot be cited in this circuit except under specific Ninth Circuit rules.