You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Hui Zhao Jiang v. Holder

Citation: 320 F. App'x 612Docket: No. 07-70236

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; March 25, 2009; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Hui Zhao Jiang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order that denied his motion to reconsider. The jurisdiction for this review is under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. The petition is partially denied and partially dismissed. The petitioner waived any challenge to the BIA’s finding that his motion was untimely filed, as he did not address this issue in his opening brief, consistent with the precedent set in Martinez-Serrano v. INS. Additionally, any challenge to the BIA’s May 30, 2006 order denying his motion to reissue is dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction, as the petition for review was not timely filed per 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). The remaining arguments presented by the petitioner are deemed unpersuasive. The court's decision is not designated for publication and does not establish precedent except as permitted by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Legal Issues Addressed

Jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252

Application: The jurisdiction for reviewing the Board of Immigration Appeals order is established under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

Reasoning: The jurisdiction for this review is under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

Non-precedential Decision

Application: The court's decision is not published and does not serve as precedent except under specific local rules.

Reasoning: The court's decision is not designated for publication and does not establish precedent except as permitted by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Timeliness Requirement under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1)

Application: The court dismissed the challenge to the BIA’s order due to the petition for review not being timely filed in accordance with statutory requirements.

Reasoning: Any challenge to the BIA’s May 30, 2006 order denying his motion to reissue is dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction, as the petition for review was not timely filed per 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1).

Waiver of Challenge for Untimely Motion

Application: The petitioner waived any challenge to the BIA’s finding regarding the untimeliness of his motion by failing to address it in his opening brief.

Reasoning: The petitioner waived any challenge to the BIA’s finding that his motion was untimely filed, as he did not address this issue in his opening brief, consistent with the precedent set in Martinez-Serrano v. INS.