Pinto

Pinto v. Holder

Good Law
648 F.3d 976·2011 WL 3523718·2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16611
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 12, 201106-73369California5,345 words

Opinion

Opinion

Bybee, J.

Epifanio Teo Pinto petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) in which the BIA denied asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) but remanded the case to the immigration judge (“IJ”) for voluntary departure proceedings. Because our jurisdiction is limited to the review of final orders of removal, 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a), we must first decide whether the BIA’s decision in this case is such an order. We have previously held that similar BIA decisions are final orders, first in Castrejon-Garcia v. INS, 60 F.3d 1359 (9th Cir.1995) (“Castrejon ”), where we interpreted § 1252’s predecessor, 8 U.S.C. § 1105a (1995), and second in Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc), where we interpreted § 1252 in light of 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(47), a post -Castrejon amendment that both defines an order of removal and specifies when the order becomes final. We must now decide whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Dada v. Mukasey, 554 U.S. 1 , 128 S.Ct. 2307 , 171 L.Ed.2d 178 (2008), or the promulgation of a new voluntary departure regulation that became effective on January 20, 2009 deprives us…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.