ALEJANDRO CRUZ-GAMBOA V. ERIC H. HOLDER JR., No. 08-75015 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAY 15 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ALEJANDRO CRUZ-GAMBOA and JEHORGINA ARREOLA, No. 08-75015 Agency Nos. Petitioners, A095-300-298 A095-300-299 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 6, 2013** Pasadena, California Before: NOONAN, WARDLAW, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Alejandro Cruz-Gamboa and Jehorgina Arreola, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) dismissal of their appeal from an Immigration Judge s ( IJ ) decision which, after * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). a limited remand, granted voluntary departure but did not reconsider the petitioners previously-denied applications for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. Because the BIA affirmed the denial of the petitioners applications for cancellation of removal and expressly limited the scope of its remand to the issue of voluntary departure, the IJ properly refused to reconsider the denial of the applications for cancellation of removal. See Pinto v. Holder, 648 F.3d 976, 986 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining that our precedent does not allow reconsideration of the petitioner s eligibility for discretionary relief in cases like [the petitioner s] where the BIA definitively adjudicates this issue and where the only lingering question on remand is how petitioner will leave: by removal or through voluntary departure. ); see also Junming Li v. Holder, 656 F.3d 898, 904 n.1 (9th Cir. 2011); In re M-D-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 138, 141 (BIA 2007). PETITION 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.