Narrative Opinion Summary
This case involves a pro se petition filed by a married couple from Mexico seeking review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision that denied their motion to reopen removal proceedings. The jurisdiction for the review is grounded in 8 U.S.C. § 1252, allowing the court to evaluate due process violations de novo. The court partially dismissed and partially denied the petition, citing a lack of jurisdiction over untimely challenges to the BIA’s prior order concerning the cancellation of removal application. Additionally, the court rejected constitutional challenges related to the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA), referencing precedent from Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft, which upholds Congress's authority to grant preferential treatment to certain aliens for diplomatic reasons. Ultimately, the court ruled that the petition for review is dismissed in part and denied in part, emphasizing that the disposition is not eligible for publication or citation in future cases except under specific rules. This outcome underscores the procedural complexities and jurisdictional limitations inherent in immigration proceedings.
Legal Issues Addressed
Constitutionality of NACARA Preferencessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Constitutional challenges to NACARA are precluded by precedent affirming Congress's authority to provide preferential treatment to certain aliens.
Reasoning: Additionally, the petitioners’ constitutional challenges related to the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) are precluded by established precedent in Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft, which affirms Congress’s authority to provide preferential treatment to certain aliens for diplomatic reasons.
Jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court has the jurisdiction to review due process violations in immigration matters under this statute.
Reasoning: Jurisdiction for the review is granted by 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and the court evaluates due process violations in immigration matters de novo, referencing Sanchez-Cruz v. INS.
Non-Publication of Dispositionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's decision in this case is not suitable for publication and cannot be cited in future cases, except under specific rules.
Reasoning: The court concludes that the petition for review is dismissed in part and denied in part, and notes that this disposition is not suitable for publication and cannot be cited in future cases except as stipulated by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Timeliness of Appeals in Immigration Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court lacks jurisdiction over challenges to the BIA’s prior order due to untimeliness of the petition for review.
Reasoning: Specifically, it lacks jurisdiction over the petitioners’ challenges to the BIA’s prior order dismissing their appeal regarding the immigration judge's decision on their cancellation of removal application, as the review was not timely.