Ruelas-Dorado v. Mukasey, No. 06-60976 (5th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 06-60976 Summary Calendar January 24, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk JOSE ANTONIO RUELAS-DORADO Petitioner v. MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A75 910 783 Before JONES, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Jose Antonio Ruelas-Dorado (Ruelas), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal of the Immigration Judge s (IJ) removal order. Ruelas contends that he is eligible for an adjustment of status because 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i) exempts the ground of inadmissibility set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I). This court has previously upheld as reasonable the BIA s determination that § 1255(i) does not exempt the ground of inadmissibility set * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. No. 06-60976 forth in § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I). Mortera-Cruz v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 246, 256 (5th Cir. 2005). To the extent Ruelas argues that Mortera-Cruz was incorrectly decided, one panel of this court may not overrule a prior panel s decision in the absence of an intervening contrary or superseding decision by this court sitting en banc or by the United States Supreme Court. See United States v. Ruff, 984 F.2d 635, 640 (5th Cir. 1993). Ruelas also contends that he is eligible for an adjustment of status under § 1255(i) with a Form I-212 waiver because a Form I-212 waiver would cure his inadmissibility under § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I). This court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA s discretionary denial of a Form I-212 waiver. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B). Finally, Ruelas contends that the BIA s interpretation of § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) leaves the statute open to a constitutional attack on equal protection grounds. Ruelas does not identify which classes or groups of immigrants are allegedly treated differently by the BIA s interpretation of § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I). Further, this court has held that the conduct proscribed by § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) is both different from and more culpable than the conduct of an alien who is inadmissible only under § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Mortera-Cruz, 409 F.3d at 255-56. Therefore, Ruelas s conclusional equal protection claim is without merit. Accordingly, Ruelas s petition for review is DENIED. 2
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.
