FlawCheck Citator
Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8646082
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Buenrostro v. Mukasey

No. 8646082 · Decided December 10, 2007
No. 8646082 · Ninth Circuit · 2007 · FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
December 10, 2007
Citation
No. 8646082
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM *** Carlos Alberto Marquez Buenrostro, his wife and daughter, all natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their first motion to reopen deportation proceedings (No. 05-74325) and the BIA’s order denying their second motion to reopen deportation proceedings (No. 05-76149). To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review in No. OS-74325, and we deny the petition for review in No. 05-76149. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioners’ first motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed more than two years after the BIA’s final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2) (motion to reopen must be filed within ninety days of final administrative decision), and the BIA clarified its earlier ruling in accor *936 dance with Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917 (9th Cir.2004), in any event. We lack jurisdiction to consider Petitioners’ challenge to the BIA’s underlying order dismissing their direct appeal from the immigration judge’s decision because the petition for review is not timely as to that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003) The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioners’ second motion to reopen because it was numerically barred and did not meet any of the regulatory exceptions. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2), (3). Moreover, the BIA properly concluded that Petitioners were not eligible for repapering because a final administrative order had been issued. See, e.g., Alcaraz v. INS, 384 F.3d 1150, 1152-53 (9th Cir.2004) (explaining eligibility requirements for repapering). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part in No. OS-74325. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in No. 05-76149. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Plain English Summary
MEMORANDUM *** Carlos Alberto Marquez Buenrostro, his wife and daughter, all natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their first motion to reopen deportation proceedings
Key Points
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM *** Carlos Alberto Marquez Buenrostro, his wife and daughter, all natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their first motion to reopen deportation proceedings
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Buenrostro v. Mukasey in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on December 10, 2007.
Use the citation No. 8646082 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.
Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Side-by-side with Westlaw and LexisNexis

Feature FlawFinder Westlaw LexisNexis
Monthly price$19 – $99$133 – $646$153 – $399
ContractNone1–3 year min1–6 year min
Hidden fees$0, alwaysUp to $469/search$25/mo + per-doc
FlawCheck citatorIncludedKeyCite ($$$)Shepard's ($$$)
Plain-English summaryIncludedNoNo
CancelOne clickTermination feesAccount friction
Related Cases

Full legal research for $19/month

All 50 states · Federal regulations · Case law · Police SOPs · AI analysis included · No contract

Continue Researching →