Valdiviezo-Aguilar v. Holder , 400 F. App'x 220 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          FILED
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                            OCT 20 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    ALEJANDRO HIGINIO VALDIVIEZO-                    No. 06-71787
    AGUILAR, aka Alex Higinio Valdiviezo-
    Aguilar,                                         Agency No. A026-975-077
    Petitioner,
    MEMORANDUM *
    v.
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted October 5, 2010 **
    Pasadena, California
    Before: CUDAHY,*** WARDLAW and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    *
    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).
    ***
    The Honorable Richard D. Cudahy, Senior United States Circuit
    Judge for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.
    Alejandro Higinio Valdiviezo-Aguilar petitions for review of the decision of
    the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed the Immigration Judge’s
    (IJ’s) conclusion that he is removable under INA § 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) as an alien
    convicted of committing an offense “relating to a controlled substance.” The IJ
    also determined that Valdiviezo-Aguilar is removable under INA §
    212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) as an alien present in the United States and not in possession of
    any valid entry document. Valvidezo-Aguilar did not contest that basis for finding
    removability before the BIA; nor does he challenge it in his petition for review
    before us. Because Valdiviezo-Aguilar is removable in any event under INA §
    212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), we would be unable to provide any effective relief even if we
    were to decide the merits of his § 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) claim in his favor.
    Accordingly, Valdiviezo-Aguilar’s petition for review is moot, and must be
    dismissed. See Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. Fed. Express Corp.,
    
    558 F.3d 842
    , 846-47 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Pub. Util. Comm’n v. FERC, 
    100 F.3d 1451
    , 1458 (9th Cir. 1996)).
    DISMISSED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-71787

Citation Numbers: 400 F. App'x 220

Judges: Cudahy, Wardlaw, Fletcher

Filed Date: 10/20/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024