Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Buenrostro-Lomeli v. Gonzales
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided August 27, 2007No. 04-72448Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partPaez, Circuit Judge
Buenrostro-Lomeli filed two motions with the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The first was a motion to reopen to apply for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(f), which the BIA denied. Because Buenrostro-Lomeli did not timely file a petition for review of this ruling, I concur in majority’s holding that we lack jurisdiction to review it. I respectfully dissent from the remainder of the majority’s decision. Buenrostro-Lomeli’s second motion, which he properly labeled a motion to reconsider,2 identified errors of law in the BIA’s decision denying his first motion to reopen. I would…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Miguel Angel Iturribarria v. Immigration and Naturalization ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- Li Chen Zheng, AKA Zheng Li Chen v. John Ashcroft, Attorney GeneralCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- Noemi GARROVILLAS, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, RespondentCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
- Carlos Humberto Ordonez v. Immigration and Naturalization ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- Preet Kaur v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney GeneralCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.