Mondragon-Rodriguez, et al v. Holder, No. 07-73854 (9th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 02 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAMON MONDRAGON-RODRIGUEZ, a.k.a. Ramon Mondragon Rodriguez, No. 07-73854 Agency No. A091-745-184 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM * v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 19, 2010 ** Before: O SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges. Ramon Mondragon-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge s removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, * 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). 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Because Mondragon-Rodriguez failed to demonstrate a gross miscarriage of justice at his prior proceedings, he may not collaterally attack his 2000 deportation order. See Ramirez-Juarez v. INS, 633 F.2d 174, 175-76 (9th Cir. 1980) (per curiam) ( This court has consistently held that an alien cannot collaterally attack an earlier exclusion or deportation at a subsequent deportation hearing, in the absence of a gross miscarriage of justice at the prior proceedings. ); Alvarenga-Villalobos v. Ashcroft, 271 F.3d 1169, 1172-73 (9th Cir. 2001) (deportation order under a given rule of law may withstand subsequent judicial change in that rule). The agency did not err in determining Mondragon-Rodriguez was ineligible for cancellation of removal where his 2000 deportation order terminated his status as a lawful permanent resident. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(20), 1229b(a)(1). We lack jurisdiction to review the agency s denial of MondragonRodriguez s request for voluntary departure. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f); Alvarez-Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245, 1255 (9th Cir. 2003). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 07-73854
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.
