U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2007

Vasquez-Gonzales v. Gonzales

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided June 14, 2007 · Leavy, Nelson, Rymer

244 F. App'x 772

Counsel

Stuart I. Folinsky, Esq., Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner., District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Arthur F. Norton, U.S. Department of Justice, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

S. v. United Healthcare Insurance (District Court, D. Utah 2023)
Vest v. The Nissan Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan II (District Court, M.D. Tennessee 2022)
S. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Mexico (District Court, D. Utah 2021)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM **

Jairo Vosbeli Vasquez-Gonzales, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an immigration judge’s order of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings. See Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir. 2001). We deny the petition for review.

*773Vasquez-Gonzales contends that the BIA violated due process by mailing his briefing schedule and transcript to an incorrect zip code and then deciding his appeal without briefing. Vasquez-Gonzales’ contention is unavailing because he withdrew his asylum application before appealing to the BIA and he has not shown any other plausible ground for relief. See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 826-28 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that petitioner was not prejudiced because there were no plausible grounds for relief at the time of his appeal to the BIA).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.