Duran

Duran v. Keisler

Good Law
251 F. App'x 429
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 18, 2007No. 07-71424California441 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect this status.

*430 This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying petitioner’s motion to reopen removal proceedings.

The regulations provide, with certain exceptions that do not apply to this case, that “a party may file only one motion to reopen....” See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2). Therefore, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s fifth motion to reopen as numerically barred. See id.

Accordingly, respondent’s unopposed motion for summary disposition is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard).

All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Dissenting Opinion

Pregerson, J.

dissenting:

I dissent. This case, and the 60 others like it filed today, will have an adverse effect on children born in the United States whose parent/parents are illegal immigrants. When a parent is denied cancellation of removal, the government effectively deports the United States-born children of that parent. This unconscionable result violates due process by forcing children either to suffer de facto expulsion from the country of their birth or forego their constitutionally-protected right to remain in this country with their family intact. See, e.g., Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 503-05 , 97 S.Ct. 1932 , 52 L.Ed.2d 531 (1977) (“Our decisions establish that the Constitution protects the sanctity of the family precisely because the institution of the family is deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition.”); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 , 92 S.Ct. 1208 , 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972) (recognizing that “[t]he integrity of the family unit has found protection in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment”).

Furthermore, as a nation we should recognize that many who came here illegally and many children born of illegal immigrants serve and have…

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.