Bucio-Carrillo v. Holder , 406 F. App'x 211 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              DEC 20 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    RAMON BUCIO-CARRILLO, aka                        No. 06-74810
    Ramon Bucio, Ramon Busio, and Jesus
    Ramon Bucio-Carrillo,                            Agency No. A038-513-608
    Petitioner,
    MEMORANDUM *
    v.
    ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted December 9, 2010 **
    San Francisco, California
    Before: REINHARDT, HAWKINS, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    Ramon Bucio-Carrillo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
    of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from
    *
    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).
    an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We deny the petition for review.
    1.       Bucio-Carrillo seeks to collaterally attack his 1998 removal order. As a
    general rule, “an alien cannot collaterally attack an earlier exclusion or deportation
    at a subsequent deportation hearing, in the absence of a gross miscarriage of justice
    at the prior proceedings.” Ramirez-Juarez v. INS, 
    633 F.2d 174
    , 175-76 (9th Cir.
    1980) (per curium). Here, the BIA did not err in concluding that Bucio-Carrillo
    failed to demonstrate a “gross miscarriage of justice at the prior proceeding,”
    because the May 1, 1998 deportation order was lawful when he was deported on
    July 14, 1998. See Alvarenga-Villalobos v. Ashcroft, 
    271 F.3d 1169
    , 1172-73 (9th
    Cir. 2001). Therefore, Bucio-Carrillo cannot collaterally attack his 1998 removal
    order.
    Additionally, Bucio-Carrillo is not entitled to the relief provided by 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.44
    , because it specifically excludes aliens who illegally return to the United
    States.
    2.       Bucio-Carrillo filed a motion to augment the record with his I-212
    application, his 1998 habeas corpus denial, and the transcript of the proceedings on
    October 19, 2005. The documents are not necessary to the resolution of this
    matter. Thus, the motion is denied.
    2
    PETITION DENIED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-74810

Citation Numbers: 406 F. App'x 211

Judges: Reinhardt, Hawkins, Smith

Filed Date: 12/20/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024