Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
10-72328•Francisco Ocampo Castro v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General
10-72328Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit24.04.2013
* 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANCISCO OCAMPO CASTRO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-72328
Agency No. A087-051-068
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 19, 2013 **
San Francisco, California
Before: NOONAN, O’SCANNLAIN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Francisco Ocampo Castro petitions for review of the decision of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reinstating his 1997 order of deportation.
FILED
APR 24 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-- 1 of 3 --
2
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny Castro’s petition
for review.
Castro does not allege any gross miscarriage of justice in the 1997 removal
proceedings. Nor does Castro dispute that his reinstated removal meets all of the
elements of 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5). Thus, Castro has failed to present any
justiciable issue on appeal. See Garcia de Rincon v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 539
F.3d 1133, 1137-38 (9th Cir. 2008).
Castro’s due process rights were also not violated when DHS reinstated his
removal. Castro does not have a protected liberty interest in having his adjustment
of status application adjudicated. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5) (“the alien is not
eligible and may not apply for any relief” (emphasis added)). Even if Castro did
have a due process right, he has failed to show error and substantial prejudice. See
Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000). The United States Citizenship
and Immigration Service did not err in denying Castro’s Form I-212 waiver when
it determined that Castro did not meet the statutory requirements for consent to
reapply under section 212(a)(9)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8
U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(A).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
-- 3 of 3 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.