Valdiviezo-Aguilar, et al v. Holder, No. 06-71787 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OCT 20 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS ALEJANDRO HIGINIO VALDIVIEZOAGUILAR, aka Alex Higinio ValdiviezoAguilar, No. 06-71787 Agency No. A026-975-077 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM * v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 5, 2010 ** Pasadena, California Before: CUDAHY,*** WARDLAW and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. * 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 Honorable Richard D. Cudahy, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation. Alejandro Higinio Valdiviezo-Aguilar petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed the Immigration Judge s (IJ s) conclusion that he is removable under INA § 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) as an alien convicted of committing an offense relating to a controlled substance. The IJ also determined that Valdiviezo-Aguilar is removable under INA § 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) as an alien present in the United States and not in possession of any valid entry document. Valvidezo-Aguilar did not contest that basis for finding removability before the BIA; nor does he challenge it in his petition for review before us. Because Valdiviezo-Aguilar is removable in any event under INA § 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), we would be unable to provide any effective relief even if we were to decide the merits of his § 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) claim in his favor. Accordingly, Valdiviezo-Aguilar s petition for review is moot, and must be dismissed. See Equal Employment Opportunity Comm n v. Fed. Express Corp., 558 F.3d 842, 846-47 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Pub. Util. Comm n v. FERC, 100 F.3d 1451, 1458 (9th Cir. 1996)). DISMISSED.

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.