DAVID LOPEZ-GOMEZ V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 15-73182 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 26 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DAVID LOPEZ-GOMEZ, No. Petitioner, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-73182 Agency No. A200-248-498 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 11, 2017** Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. David Lopez-Gomez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, and we * 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). review de novo questions of law. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Lopez-Gomez did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that he lawfully entered the United States. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(c); Murphy v. INS, 54 F.3d 605, 608-09 (9th Cir. 1995) (alien bears burden of showing time, place, and manner of entry after the government has established alienage); Carrillo-Gonzalez v. INS, 353 F.3d 1077, 1079 (9th Cir. 2003) (statements by counsel are not evidence). The BIA did not err in referring to Lopez-Gomez’s mother’s declaration. We lack jurisdiction to consider Lopez-Gomez’s unexhausted contentions regarding the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010). We grant the motion to withdraw as counsel of record (Docket Entry No. 28) filed by Bethany C. Danks. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 15-73182

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.