Luis Lopez-Navarrete v. Eric H. Holder Jr., No. 08-74451 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 30 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LUIS HECTOR LOPEZ-NAVARRETE, a.k.a. Louis Hector Lopez, No. 08-74451 Agency No. A013-068-215 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM * v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 16, 2010 ** Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. Luis Hector Lopez-Navarrete, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge s ( IJ ) removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. * 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). The IJ properly denied Lopez-Navarrete s motion to terminate because Lopez-Navarrete failed to obtain an affirmative statement of prima facie eligibility for naturalization from the government. See Hernandez de Anderson v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 927, 933-35 (9th Cir. 2007); 8 C.F.R. § 1239.2(f). We lack jurisdiction to review the agency s discretionary denial of relief under former section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996). See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii); Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 923 (9th Cir. 2007). Lopez-Navarrete s contention that in making its decision the agency failed to consider all the relevant factors is not supported by the record and does not amount to a colorable claim over which we have jurisdiction. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir. 2009). We lack jurisdiction to consider Lopez-Navarrete s due process claims because he failed to exhaust them before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 08-74451

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.