RAMON JUAREZ-RIOS V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 11-72441 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 20 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAMON CARLOS JUAREZ-RIOS, Petitioner, No. 11-72441 Agency No. A091-516-702 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. Ramon Carlos Juarez-Rios, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from a decision of an immigration judge ( IJ ) denying Juarez-Rios s motion to reopen. * 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. Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1189 (9th Cir. 2011). We dismiss the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to review the agency s decision to deny Juarez-Rios s motion to reopen, because Juarez-Rios s pleadings before the IJ establish that he is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) and § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) by reason of his conviction for possession of methamphetamine for sale. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C); see also Pagayon, 675 F.3d at 1189 (holding that a petitioner s pleading-stage admissions may be sufficient to establish removability). JuarezRios does not raise a colorable constitutional claim or question of law sufficient to restore our jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir. 2009) ( To be colorable in this context . . . , the claim [or question] must have some possible validity. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 2 11-72441

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.