SANDRA ROMERO-VALENZUELA V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 09-71525 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 16 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SANDRA ROMERO-VALENZUELA, Petitioner, No. 09-71525 Agency No. A093-142-519 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 13, 2012 ** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. Sandra Romero-Valenzuela, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge s decision denying her motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Reynoso- * 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). Cisneros v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1001, 1002 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam), and we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings. In concluding that the agency lacked jurisdiction to reopen RomeroValenzuela s proceedings as a result of her prior deportation, the BIA did not have the benefit of Reyes-Torres v. Holder, 645 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2011), in which we held that 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(d) did not preclude the filing of a motion to reopen after the petitioner had been removed. See Reyes-Torres, 645 F.3d at 1076-77; see also Reynoso-Cisneros, 491 F.3d at 1002 (treating departure bars under 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(d) and 1003.23(b)(1) as substantively identical). We remand to the BIA in light of this intervening caselaw. In light of our disposition, we need not address Romero-Valenzuela s remaining contentions. PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED. 2 09-71525

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.