MINERVA AVILES-OCAMPO V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 15-70859 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED AUG 02 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MINERVA LETICIA AVILESOCAMPO, No. 15-70859 Agency No. A205-712-814 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 26, 2016** Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Minerva Leticia Aviles-Ocampo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s order of removal. We have jurisdiction under * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo legal claims, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004), and deny the petition for review. Aviles-Ocampo does not challenge the agency’s dispositive determination that her petty theft with priors convictions constitute crimes involving moral turpitude that render her statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(B)-(C); Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2011) (issues not raised in an opening brief are waived). We reject Aviles-Ocampo’s contention that the BIA engaged in improper fact-finding in determining she was not eligible for cancellation of removal and declining to remand to the immigration judge. In light of our disposition, we do not reach Aviles-Ocampo’s remaining contention regarding whether her convictions constitute aggravated felonies. See Simeonov, 371 F.3d at 538. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 15-70859

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.