Maria Arechiga-Pena v. Loretta E. Lynch ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 23 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA ACELA ARECHIGA-PENA, No. 13-71944
AKA Sara Leticia Perales,
Agency No. A047-319-188
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Maria Acela Arechiga-Pena, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision pretermitting her application for cancellation of
removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
§ 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Monet v. INS, 791 F.2d 752, 753
(9th Cir. 1986). We deny the petition for review.
Arechiga-Pena concedes that under controlling precedent lawful permanent
resident status granted by fraud or mistake is void ab initio. See Shin v. Holder,
607 F.3d 1213, 1217 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Although the facts of [prior cases] involve
acts of personal fraud or misrepresentation, their holdings broadly deem all grants
of LPR status that were not in substantive compliance with the immigration laws to
be void ab initio.”); Monet, 791 F.2d at 753 (“Admission is not lawful if it is
regular only in form. The term ‘lawfully’ denotes compliance with substantive
legal requirements, not mere procedural regularity[.]” (citation and quotation
marks omitted)). We decline Arechiga-Pena’s request to limit that precedent to
cases where permanent resident status was granted by fraud alone. See United
States v. Vasquez-Ramos, 531 F.3d 987, 991 (9th Cir. 2008) (“We are bound by
circuit precedent unless there has been a substantial change in relevant
circumstances, or a subsequent en banc or Supreme Court decision that is clearly
irreconcilable with our prior holding.” (internal citations omitted)).
Arechiga-Pena’s contentions regarding 8 U.S.C. § 1256 and rescission are
foreclosed by this court’s holding in Monet v. INS, where we noted that § 1256
pertains to rescission of permanent resident status, and “does not apply to bar
2 13-71944
deportation proceedings against an adjusted alien” and therefore we “exclude[d]
application of the five year limitations period to deportation proceedings regardless
of the method of the alien’s admission.” Monet, 791 F.2d at 754.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-71944