Bucio-Carrillo v. Holder ( 2010 )

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 20 2010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