Violeta I. Garcia v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Felipe Santiago Cortegana v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General

Good Law
368 F.3d 1157·2004 WL 1171441·2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 10447
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 27, 200402-71630, 02-71631California865 words

Opinion

Opinion

ORDER

Felipe Cortegana and Violeta Garcia petitioned for review from the denial of their application for asylum and withholding of removal. After filing their petition for review, they requested that we hold they still qualify for voluntary departure because Zazu etar-Carrillo v. Ashcroft, 322 F.3d 1166, 1171 (9th Cir.2003) does not apply to them. We denied the petition for review in an unpublished disposition, filed March 18, 2004, because the immigration judge’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. In the same disposition, we denied the motion to hold that petitioners still qualify for voluntary departure because petitioners have not exhausted their administrative remedies.

After that disposition was filed, petitioners filed a “Motion for Stay of Removal and Stay of Mandate,” which the govern ment opposed. Petitioners essentially argue that their period of voluntary departure should have been stayed by the filing of their petition for review in the Court of Appeals, given their reliance on Contreras-Aragon v. INS, 852 F.2d 1088 (9th Cir.1988) (en banc), and given the equitable hardships, they face. We therefore construe these filings as a motion for stay of…

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.