Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Roa v. Gonzales
Citation: 235 F. App'x 614Docket: Nos. 05-75163, 06-70181
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; August 21, 2007; Federal Appellate Court
Norma Roa, a citizen of the Philippines, filed two consolidated petitions for review regarding orders from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The first order dismissed her appeal against an immigration judge's (IJ) removal order, while the second denied her motion to reopen the case. The court dismissed petition No. 05-75163 and denied petition No. 06-70181. Roa's claim of due process violations concerning the IJ's failure to inform her about cancellation of removal was deemed unexhausted, as it was not properly raised before the BIA. The court cited Barron v. Ashcroft, emphasizing that exhaustion of claims is mandatory for jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). Regarding the motion to reopen, the court confirmed jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, referencing Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales. However, Roa's argument that the BIA abused its discretion in denying her motion was rejected based on Garcia-Jimenez v. Gonzales, which establishes that an alien who has previously received § 212(c) relief is ineligible for § 1229b relief. The court concluded with a dismissal of petition No. 05-75163 and a denial of petition No. 06-70181, noting that the disposition is not suitable for publication and does not serve as precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.