FlawCheck Citator
Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8630636
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Salazar-Manzano v. Gonzales

No. 8630636 · Decided April 25, 2007
No. 8630636 · Ninth Circuit · 2007 · FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
April 25, 2007
Citation
No. 8630636
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** Humberto Salazar-Manzano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ *579 (“BIA”) order adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for cancellation of removal, and the BIA’s order denying his motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 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), and review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review in No. 05-74793, and deny the petition for review in No. 06-71277. We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that SalazarManzano failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003). SalazarManzano’s contentions that the IJ’s order violated his constitutional guarantees under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses are unpersuasive. See Ram, 243 F.3d at 517 ; Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005). We therefore dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review in No. 05-74793. We agree with the BIA’s conclusion that the performance by prior counsel did not result in prejudice to Salazar-Manzano, and thus his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel fails. See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir.2003) (to prevail in an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a petitioner must demonstrate prejudice). We therefore deny the petition for review in No. 06-71277. In No. 05-74793, PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. In No. 06-71277, PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
Plain English Summary
MEMORANDUM ** Humberto Salazar-Manzano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ *579 (“BIA”) order adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for can
Key Points
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM ** Humberto Salazar-Manzano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ *579 (“BIA”) order adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for can
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Salazar-Manzano v. Gonzales in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on April 25, 2007.
Use the citation No. 8630636 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 →