Arrozal

Arrozal v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Good Law
24 F. App'x 839
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 14, 2002No. 00-70165; I & NS No. A27-699-083California288 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Remedios Arrozal Yehdego (‘Yehdego”) seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision denying her motion to reopen her deportation proceedings. We deny her petition for review.

Yehdego argues that aliens may restart a new period of seven years of continuous physical presence after receiving an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”). We reject this argument because it has been foreclosed by Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 518 (9th Cir.2001).

We also reject any argument that the BIA should have applied the law in effect at the time it first heard Yehdego’s motion in 1996. The procedural history of Yehdego’s case is nearly identical to that of Ram . In Ram , we originally reversed the BIA’s denial of Ram’s suspension of deportation motion and remanded for further review of hardship. 243 F.3d at 512 . On remand, the BIA applied the stop-time rule to Ram and denied the petition, and we approved the BIA’s action.

Our cases which have required the BIA to apply pre-IIRIRA law are distinguishable. In Guadalupe-Cruz v. INS, 240 F.3d 1209 (9th Cir.2001), the Immigration Judge had applied IIRIRA’s stop-time rule four days before IIRIRA became effective. There was no…

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.