Ramos-Ruiz, et al v. Holder, No. 06-74033 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 15 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERTO RAMOS-RUIZ, Petitioner, No. 06-74033 BIA-1: A013-562-620 MEMORANDUM* v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. Appeal from the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 10, 2010** San Francisco, California Before: COWEN***, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, 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 Robert E. Cowen, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation. Roberto Ramos-Ruiz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and constitutional claims. Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review. The agency determined that Ramos-Ruiz is ineligible for relief under former section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996), because his ground of removability lacks a statutory counterpart in a ground of inadmissibility. See 8 C.F.R. § 1212.3(f)(5). Ramos-Ruiz s challenges to this determination are foreclosed by this Court s decision in Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1206, 1208 n.7 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). This Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Ramos-Ruiz s challenge to the agency s finding that he is deportable as an aggravated felon because he failed to raise this issue before the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART. 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.