Corona Duarte v. Holder , 373 F. App'x 675 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             APR 01 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    CECILIA CORONA DUARTE,                          No. 07-71327
    Petitioner,                       Agency No. A090-089-593
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted March 16, 2010 **
    Before:        SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    Cecilia Corona Duarte, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
    of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
    immigration judge’s order denying her application for a § 212(c) waiver. Our
    *
    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).
    IH/Research
    jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law,
    Saravia-Paguada v. Gonzales, 
    488 F.3d 1122
    , 1129 n.10 (9th Cir. 2007), and we
    dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
    We lack jurisdiction to review Corona Duarte’s contention that there is
    insufficient evidence in the record to establish that she committed an offense that
    would render her ineligible for § 212(c) relief under § 440(d) of the Antiterrorism
    and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) because Corona Duarte failed to
    exhaust this issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 
    358 F.3d 674
    , 677 (9th
    Cir. 2004).
    Although we have jurisdiction to review Corona Duarte’s contention that the
    application of § 440(d) of the AEDPA has an impermissibly retroactive effect in
    her case, see 
    Saravia-Paguada, 488 F.3d at 1130
    , her contention lacks merit
    because she was convicted after AEDPA’s effective date, 
    id. at 1132-33
    (the past
    relevant conduct for the retroactivity analysis is the alien’s decision whether to
    enter a guilty plea or to proceed to trial, and not the commission of the underlying
    criminal conduct).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
    IH/Research                                2                                    07-71327
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-71327

Citation Numbers: 373 F. App'x 675

Judges: Schroeder, Pregerson, Rawlinson

Filed Date: 4/1/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024