Navarro, et al v. Holder, No. 06-74973 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 02 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALFONSO SOLIS NAVARRO, Petitioner, No. 06-74973 Agency No. A038-060-229 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 19, 2010 ** Before: O SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges. Alfonso Solis Navarro, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. * 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). We review de novo questions of law and constitutional claims, Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for review. Navarro does not challenge the agency s determination that he is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) based on his conviction for assault with a deadly weapon in violation of Cal. Penal Code § 245(a)(1). Navarro is ineligible for relief under former section 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996), because his ground of removability lacks a statutory counterpart in a ground of inadmissibility.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); see also Aguilar-Ramos v. Holder, 594 F.3d 701, 706 (9th Cir. 2010). Navarro s equal protection challenge to the agency s denial of section 212(c) relief is foreclosed by Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1207 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Navarro s remaining contention is unpersuasive. Navarro s pending motion is denied as moot. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 06-74973

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.