YONI SOLIS-RAMIREZ V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 13-72649 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 19 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT YONI ROLANDO SOLIS-RAMIREZ, Petitioner, No. 13-72649 Agency No. A044-612-096 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted August 30, 2016 Pasadena, California Before: KOZINSKI and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and WALTER,** District Judge. Yoni Solis-Ramirez petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decisions not to reopen sua sponte or cancel his removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Donald E. Walter, United States District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation. deny the petition. The parties are familiar with the facts, and we will not recite them here. Solis-Ramirez contends that the BIA erred when it refused to reopen sua sponte or cancel his removal proceedings. It did not. Because Solis-Ramirez’s removal order was merely a reinstatement of a previous removal order, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5) provides that “the prior order of removal is reinstated . . . and is not subject to being reopened or reviewed.” Nonetheless, Solis-Ramirez urged the BIA to reopen or cancel the removal proceedings on the basis that the “prior order of removal” was a gross miscarriage of justice for two reasons: ineffective assistance of counsel and the reclassification of a crime that was one of the bases for the initial removal order. The BIA is barred from reopening or reviewing a reinstated removal order unless its refusal to do so would result in a “gross miscarriage of justice.” Garcia de Rincon v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 539 F.3d 1133, 1138 (9th Cir. 2008). SolisRamirez’s allegations fail to rise to this high bar. See Ramirez-Juarez v. INS, 633 F.2d 174, 175–76 (9th Cir. 1980) (per curiam) (refusing to find a gross miscarriage of justice when an alien was deported in violation of a court injunction); Hernandez-Almanza v. INS, 547 F.2d 100, 102–03 (9th Cir. 1976) (refusing to find a gross miscarriage of justice when an alien was deported based on a conviction 2 that was later vacated), superseded by statute on other grounds as noted in Planes v. Holder, 652 F.3d 991, 995 (9th Cir. 2011); see also United States v. GarciaArredondo, 489 Fed. App’x 171, 172 (9th Cir. 2012) (refusing to find a gross miscarriage of justice when an alien “allegedly received ineffective assistance of counsel” in their initial removal proceeding). Therefore, the BIA was statutorily barred from reopening or cancelling the removal proceedings. Because the statutory bar is dispositive, we do not reach the BIA’s alternative holding that Solis-Ramirez did not demonstrate an exceptional circumstance that warrants sua sponte reopening of his removal proceedings. DENIED. 3
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.
