Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
JOSE GUTIERREZ-BARRAGAN, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM*
Jose Gutierrez-Barragan, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's (“IJ”) decision finding that Gutierrez-Barragan abandoned his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the decision to deem an application abandoned. Taggar v. Holder, 736 F.3d 886, 889 (9th Cir. 2013). We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1011 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in determining that Gutierrez-Barragan abandoned his application for relief, where he did not file the application with the immigration court by the deadline the IJ imposed. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31 (applications in removal proceedings must be filed with the immigration court, and if an application “is not filed within the time set by the [IJ], the opportunity to file that application ․ shall be deemed waived”); Taggar, 736 F.3d at 889 (petitioner abandoned application where she did not file it by the IJ's deadline); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on due process challenge).
Gutierrez-Barragan contends that 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.31(c) and 1103.7 violate due process when an alien has already paid fees to the Department of Homeland Security. We do not reach these contentions, where the record does not support Gutierrez-Barragan's assertion that he paid such fees.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 13-74396
Decided: October 05, 2016
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)