Carrillo-Lozano v. Holder , 478 F. App'x 395 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                               FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                                JUN 04 2012
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    ALFREDO CARRILLO-LOZANO, a.k.a                   No. 07-73779
    Alfredo Lozano Carrillo,
    Agency No. A014-603-497
    Petitioner,
    v.                                             MEMORANDUM*
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    ALFREDO CARRILLO-LOZANO, a.k.a                   No. 08-70147
    Alfredo Lozano Carrillo,
    Agency No. A014-603-497
    Petitioner,
    v.
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    ALFREDO CARRILLO-LOZANO, A                       No. 09-17802
    United States citizen,
    D.C. No. 2:07-cv-01861-GMS
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    CHARLES DE ROSA, Warden, Eloy
    Detention Center; et al.,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Arizona
    Submitted May 17, 2012**
    San Francisco, California
    Before: REINHARDT, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    Alfredo Carrillo-Lozano (“Carrillo”) petitions pro se for review of the Board
    of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal of an Immigration
    Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying termination based on his citizenship claim. The
    BIA found that Carrillo failed to establish citizenship through his mother and that
    the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) met its burden of proof on the
    alienage issue. Carrillo additionally petitions for review of the BIA’s denial of his
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    2
    motion to reconsider. The two previous petitions were consolidated and
    transferred to the District Court for the District of Arizona for a determination of
    Carrillo’s citizenship claim. Carrillo now seeks review of the district court’s
    determination that he is not a United States citizen. Lastly, Carrillo seeks review
    of the district court’s denial of his habeas petition challenging his detention. We
    have jurisdiction under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We deny the petitions and affirm the
    district court’s determination that Carrillo is not a United States citizen.
    1.    The district court did not abuse its discretion in appointing an expert in
    Mexican family law, under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1 or Federal
    Rule of Evidence 706. Even though the district judge was friends with the expert,
    there is no evidence of bias. Additionally, the district court’s interpretation of
    Mexican law as applied to these facts was not error.
    The district court did not err in admitting the marriage certificate, because it
    complied with Federal Rule of Evidence 902(3). The district court also did not
    abuse its discretion in excluding evidence that Carrillo’s parents lived in a free
    union, because it was hearsay and not reliable. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. Even if the
    district court erred in excluding this evidence, such error was harmless. The
    district court concluded that, even if the document were admissible, it was not
    persuasive.
    3
    2.    After a bench trial, a district court’s “[f]indings of fact . . . must not be set
    aside unless clearly erroneous.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(6). “This has been
    interpreted to mean that the trial judge’s finding of fact cannot be set aside unless,
    ‘although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence
    is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’”
    Anti-Monopoly, Inc. v. Gen. Mills Fun Grp., Inc., 
    684 F.2d 1316
    , 1318 (9th Cir.
    1982) (quoting United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 
    333 U.S. 364
    , 395 (1948)); see
    also United States v. Spangle, 
    626 F.3d 488
    , 497 (9th Cir. 2010) (“In order to
    reverse a district court’s factual findings as clearly erroneous, we must determine
    that the district court’s factual findings were illogical, implausible, or without
    support in the record.”). Here, the district court’s factual determination that
    Carrillo’s parents were married at the time of Carrillo’s birth is not clearly
    erroneous. Therefore, under former INA § 309(c), 
    8 U.S.C. § 1409
    (c), Carrillo
    does not qualify for citizenship.
    4
    3.    Carrillo’s habeas appeal was reinstated and is properly before this court.
    Because Carrillo’s habeas petition on appeal only challenges his detention based
    upon a citizenship claim,1 the appeal of that issue is denied as moot.2
    PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED; HABEAS APPEAL
    DISMISSED AS MOOT.
    1
    In his habeas petition, Carrillo also challenged the length of his detention
    without a bond hearing, which the district court denied as moot after Carrillo
    received a bond hearing. Carrillo did not challenge this denial in his opening brief.
    Thus, it is waived. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 
    94 F.3d 1256
    , 1259 (9th Cir.
    1996) (issue not argued in opening brief deemed waived).
    2
    Carrillo’s F.R.A.P. 23(b) Motion for Release from Custody Pending
    Habeas Corpus Appeal as of Right and motion to reinstate oral argument are also
    denied as moot.
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-73779, 08-70147, 09-17802

Citation Numbers: 478 F. App'x 395

Judges: Reinhardt, Clifton, Smith

Filed Date: 6/4/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024