Mendoza-Bahena

Mendoza-Bahena v. Ashcroft

Good Law
7 F. App'x 722
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 2, 2001No. 99-71399; I & NS Nos. A75-474-927; A75-474-928; A75-474-931; A75-474-929; A75-474-930California292 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Carlos Mendoza-Bahena, his wife Maria Luisa Casteneda de Mendoza, and their children David, Carlos, and Jennifer Mendoza-Casteneda appeal the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s order of removal. We dismiss the petition.

(1) IIRIRA’s 1 permanent rules regarding jurisdiction govern this case. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252 ; Andrew, v. Reno, 223 F.3d 1111, 1113 (9th Cir.2000); see also Hose v. INS, 180 F.3d 992, 994-95 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc). On appeal the Mendozas argue that the INS improperly initi *723 ated removal proceedings against them after IIRIRA’s effective date of April 1, 1997, even though it could have initiated deportation proceedings against them pri- or to IIRIRA’s effective date. We lack jurisdiction to hear this issue because, inter alia, we cannot review the Attorney General’s decision regarding commencement of proceedings. 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (g); Richards-Diaz v. Fasano, 233 F.3d 1160 , 1164 n. 5, 1165 (9th Cir.2000); see also Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 482-83 , 119 S.Ct. 936, 943 , 142 L.Ed.2d 940 (1999).

(2) Even if we otherwise had jurisdiction, we could not consider the Mendozas’…

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.