Alejandro Cruz-Gamboa v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAY 15 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ALEJANDRO CRUZ-GAMBOA and No. 08-75015
JEHORGINA ARREOLA,
Agency Nos. A095-300-298
Petitioners, A095-300-299
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 6, 2013**
Pasadena, California
Before: NOONAN, WARDLAW, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Alejandro Cruz-Gamboa and Jehorgina Arreola, natives and citizens of
Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
dismissal of their appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision which, after
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for
decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
a limited remand, granted voluntary departure but did not reconsider the
petitioners’ previously-denied applications for cancellation of removal. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
Because the BIA affirmed the denial of the petitioners’ applications for
cancellation of removal and expressly limited the scope of its remand to the issue
of voluntary departure, the IJ properly refused to reconsider the denial of the
applications for cancellation of removal. See Pinto v. Holder, 648 F.3d 976, 986
(9th Cir. 2011) (explaining that our precedent does not “allow reconsideration of
the petitioner’s eligibility for discretionary relief in cases like [the petitioner’s]
where the BIA definitively adjudicates this issue and where the only lingering
question on remand is how petitioner will leave: by removal or through voluntary
departure.”); see also Junming Li v. Holder, 656 F.3d 898, 904 n.1 (9th Cir. 2011);
In re M-D-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 138, 141 (BIA 2007).
PETITION DENIED.
2