MARTHA MENDOZA V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 08-71183 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 28 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARTHA MENDOZA, No. 08-71183 Petitioner, Agency No. A089-521-262 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Department of Homeland Security Submitted April 22, 2015** Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Martha Mendoza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Department of Homeland Security reinstating her prior expedited order of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo * 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). questions of law. Duran Gonzales v. DHS, 508 F.3d 1227, 1232 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Mendoza’s challenge to the reinstatement order is foreclosed by this court’s decision in Duran Gonzales, as Mendoza concedes she filed her application for a waiver of inadmissibility well after Duran Gonzales became controlling law in this circuit. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a)(2), (i)(2)(A) (alien must be admissible to adjust status); Duran Gonzales, 508 F.3d at 1242 (“[P]laintiffs as a matter of law are not eligible to adjust their status because they are ineligible to receive I-212 waivers [of inadmissibility].”) We lack jurisdiction to consider Mendoza’s contention that her case warrants a favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order). Mendoza’s request to hold her case in abeyance pending a decision in Duran Gonzales v. DHS, 659 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2011) is denied as moot. Mendoza’s remaining contentions are unavailing. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 08-71183

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.