Dandache v. Holder
**Ineffective assistance of counsel**
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Dandache’s motion to reopen because Dandache did not substantially comply with the Lozada requirements and has not established prejudice from the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2009/11/30/08-74836.pdf
Patel-Natvarlal v. Holder
**Motion to reconsider; due process, address change**
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Patel-Natvarlal’s motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the IJ’s prior decision denying his motion to reopen. In addition, Patel-Natvarlal’s contention that the delay in filing the Order to Show Cause violated due process fails for lack of prejudice because the record does not indicate that his address changed during the period of delay or that he attempted to update the government regarding an address change.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2009/11/30/08-73837.pdf
Herard v. Holder
**Motion to reopen**
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Herard’s motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed more than five years after the final order of removal and Herard failed to demonstrate changed circumstances in Haiti to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limits for filing motions to reopen.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2009/11/30/08-73784.pdf
Rabanales v. Holder
**Nexus, social group, gangs**
Petitioner failed to establish that she suffered harm from gang members in Guatemala on account of a protected ground because resistance to gang activity is not a particular social group and personal retribution is not persecution on account of a protected ground.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2009/11/30/08-73196.pdf
Bran-Sabajan v. Holder
**Child Citizenship Act**
Bran-Sabajan’s contention that he became a United States citizen pursuant to the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 is foreclosed because he was over 18 years old on the CCA’s effective date. In addition, he lacks standing to raise his constitutional challenges regarding the CCA. He could not meet the CCA’s requirements regardless of whether the statute applied retroactively and therefore has not suffered an injury that is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision of the Court.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2009/11/30/08-73091.pdf
Guevara Guzman v. Holder
**Nexus, gangs**
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Guevara Guzman failed to demonstrate that he was harmed or has a well-founded fear of harm on account of a protected ground. He testified that gang members attacked him because they believed he had money and/or other items they wanted.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2009/11/30/08-72463.pdf
Magna Marquez v. Holder
**Collateral attack of deportation order; 212(c)**
Because Magana Marquez failed to demonstrate a gross miscarriage of justice, he may not at this point collaterally attack his 1997 deportation order. The BIA also properly concluded that Magana Marquez is not eligible for a 212(c) waiver because he is no longer an LPR.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2009/11/30/08-72340.pdf
Rivas-Cruz v. Holder
**Nexus, political opinion, social group, MS-13**
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Rivas-Cruz’s vocal opposition to the MS-13 gang did not constitute a political opinion. Rivas-Cruz’s claim that he is eligible for asylum and withholding of removal based on his membership in the group of young El Salvadorean males who refuse to join gangs also fails because that group does not constitute a particular social group.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2009/11/30/08-72132.pdf
Hernandez-Castillo v. Holder, Arevalo-Contreras v. Holder, Ayala v. Holder, Ramos Lopez v. Holder, Amaya Flores v. Holder, Cortez v. Holder
**Persecution, nexus, gang members**
Petitioners failed to establish that the harm they suffered at the hands of gang members in El Salvador was persecution on account of a protected ground.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2009/11/30/08-71268.pdf
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2009/11/30/08-71545.pdf
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2009/11/30/08-71869.pdf
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2009/11/30/08-72603.pdf
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2009/11/30/08-72724.pdf
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2009/11/30/08-74032.pdf
Danielyan v. Holder
**Persecution**
The beating the petitioner experienced at the hands of the Armenian police and his subsequent job loss did not rise to the level of persecution.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2009/11/30/08-70952.pdf
newimmigrationcases
leave a comment