Legal Opinion · Concurring in the judgment

Zetino v. Holder

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided February 18, 2010No. 08-70390Published

1Concurring in the judgmentLawson, District Judge

I concur in the majority’s decision to deny the petition and in most of its reasoning. I part company, however, with my colleagues’ conclusion that we have no jurisdiction to review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of the petitioner’s motion to accept an untimely brief. The majority’s holding amounts to an extension of circuit precedent laid down in Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2002), and Diaz-Covarrubias v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir.2009), both of which, in turn, took their core premise from Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 105 *529S.Ct. 1649, 84 L.Ed.2d 714…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. VolpeSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  2. Califano v. SandersSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  3. Ernst & Ernst v. HochfelderSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  4. Heckler v. ChaneySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  5. Mistretta v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1989

23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API