U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2008

Diaz-Rodriguez v. Mukasey

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided May 22, 2008 · Gould, Pregerson, Tashima

279 F. App'x 524

Counsel

Bill Waddell, Esq., Law Offices of Bill Waddell, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner., CAS-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Patricia A. Smith, Esq., Patrick J. Glen, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

Rouser 822775 v. Hofbauer (District Court, W.D. Michigan 2024)
Sims 663137 v. Jarvis (District Court, W.D. Michigan 2024)

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 **

Bertin Diaz-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review from a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order denying his motion to remand proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review a motion to remand for abuse of discretion, Konstantinova v. INS, 195 F.3d 528, 529 (9th Cir. 1999), and we deny the petition.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Diaz-Rodriguez’s motion to remand where he failed to present evidence to support his contentions or to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief following the purported change in case law. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (no motion to reopen shall be granted where the alien has failed to demonstrate “circumstances that have arisen subsequent to the hearing” warranting remand). His contention that the BIA failed to articulate its reasons for denying relief is not supported by the record.

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.