Arevalo-Orozco, et al v. Holder, No. 06-70913 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED AUG 31 2010 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAFAEL AREVALO-OROZCO, a.k.a. Rafael Arevalo Orosco, No. 06-70913 Agency No. A092-750-172 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM * v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 23, 2010 ** Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Rafael Arevalo-Orozco, a native a citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order denying his motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider, and review de novo questions of * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). law and constitutional claims. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Arevalo-Orozco s motion to reconsider because the motion failed to specify an error in the BIA s underlying order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). Contrary to his contention, Arevalo-Orozco is ineligible for relief under former section 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996), because his ground of removability lacks a statutory counterpart in a ground of inadmissibility. See 8 C.F.R. § 1212.3(f)(5); Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1207 & 1208 n.7 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Arevalo-Orozco s remaining legal and constitutional challenges to the BIA s determination that he is ineligible for section 212(c) relief are unavailing. See Abebe, 554 F.3d at 1207 & 1208 n.7. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 06-70913

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.