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.

Sarmiento v. Holder

Citation: 329 F. App'x 736Docket: No. 06-71305

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; July 23, 2009; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Victor Manuel Hernandez Sarmiento, a Mexican citizen, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision that dismissed his appeal against an immigration judge's denial of his application for cancellation of removal. The jurisdiction is based on 8 U.S.C. § 1252, allowing for de novo review of legal questions. The petition is partially denied and partially dismissed. The BIA appropriately denied his application because he did not depart within the voluntary departure period, which imposes a ten-year bar on certain relief forms, including cancellation of removal. The court lacks jurisdiction to examine Hernandez Sarmiento’s estoppel claim as it was not raised before the BIA. His other arguments are also unconvincing. The decision is not for publication and does not set precedent under 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Legal Issues Addressed

Jurisdiction Limitation on Claims Not Raised

Application: The court cannot review claims not presented to the BIA, such as Hernandez Sarmiento’s estoppel claim.

Reasoning: The court lacks jurisdiction to examine Hernandez Sarmiento’s estoppel claim as it was not raised before the BIA.

Jurisdiction Over Immigration Appeals

Application: The court has jurisdiction to review legal questions involved in the Board of Immigration Appeals decisions under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

Reasoning: The jurisdiction is based on 8 U.S.C. § 1252, allowing for de novo review of legal questions.

Precedential Value of Court Decisions

Application: The decision in this case is not published and does not serve as precedent under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Reasoning: The decision is not for publication and does not set precedent under 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Voluntary Departure and Bar on Relief

Application: The BIA denied the application for cancellation of removal because the petitioner did not depart within the voluntary departure period, triggering a ten-year bar on certain relief forms.

Reasoning: The BIA appropriately denied his application because he did not depart within the voluntary departure period, which imposes a ten-year bar on certain relief forms, including cancellation of removal.