Villanueva

Villanueva v. Ashcroft

Good Law
79 F. App'x 986
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 4, 2003No. 02-73089; Agency Nos. A75-261-312, A75-261313, A75-261-314, A75-261-315California768 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Petitioners challenge the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of their appeal of the Immigration Judge’s refusal to grant their petition for asylum, and the Immigration Judge’s determination that their removal proceedings began with the filing of the Notice to Appear in 1999, rather than with their earlier application for asylum. At oral argument, petitioners’ counsel conceded that the determination of the date of commencement is controlled by our recent decision Vazquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, which held that proceedings begin with the Notice to Appear, regardless of when the alien first contacted the INS. 324 F.3d 1105, 1107-08 (9th Cir.2003).

Because the Villanuevas’ removal proceedings began in 1999, the BIA was correct to determine that they may not apply for suspension of deportation, which was available only to aliens who were in immigration proceedings before April 1, 1997. See Vasquez-Zavala, 324 F.3d at 1107 . The BIA was also correct when it decided that the Villanuevas do not meet the heightened standards necessary for cancellation of removal. Id.

The Villanuevas also advance an equal protection claim related to their date-of-commencement argument.…

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.