Urquilla-Sagastizado v. Holder , 362 F. App'x 669 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 13 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICARDO A. URQUILLA- Nos. 06-74892
SAGASTIZADO, 07-71015
Petitioner, Agency No. A019-087-697
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Ricardo A. Urquilla-Sagastizado,
a native and citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
KS/Research
decision denying him relief under former Immigration and Nationality Act
§ 212(c), and the BIA’s subsequent order denying his motion to reopen. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law
and constitutional claims, and review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion
to reopen. See Escobar v. Holder, 567 F.3d 466, 469 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny in
part and dismiss in part the petition for review in No. 06-74892, and deny the
petition for review in No. 07-71015.
We agree with the BIA’s conclusion that Urquilla-Sagastizado’s concession
of the charge of removability, communicated to the IJ through counsel, was
effective. See Magallanes-Damian v. INS, 783 F.2d 931, 934 (9th Cir. 1986)
(aliens “are generally bound by the conduct of their attorneys, including
admissions made by them, absent egregious circumstances”).
We lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary decision to deny Urquilla-
Sagastizado section 212(c) relief, and he does not raise a colorable constitutional
claim to overcome this jurisdictional bar. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii);
Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 923 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Discretionary
decisions, including whether or not to grant § 212(c) relief, are not reviewable.”).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Urquilla-Sagastizado’s
motion to reopen, because the BIA considered the evidence Urquilla-Sagastizado
KS/Research 2 06-74892
submitted and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence
was insufficient to warrant reopening. See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th
Cir. 2002) (The BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is
“arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law.”).
Urquilla-Sagastizado’s remaining contentions are unavailing.
No. 06-74892: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part;
DISMISSED in part.
No. 07-71015: PETITION FOR DENIED.
KS/Research 3 06-74892