Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

267 F. App'x 321

Cantu v. Mukasey

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided February 20, 2008

This page is marked noindex.

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2008-02-20

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently September 2008

Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))

Relies on Reynaldo Requena-Rodriguez v. Kenneth Pasquarell, Immigration & Naturalization Service, District Director · Dung Tri Vo v. Gonzales · Avilez-Granados v. Gonzales

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2008-02-20

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM: *

¶1 Jose Alejandro Cantu (“Cantu”) petitions this court for review of an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The BIA affirmed the Immigration Judge’s decision granting the respondent’s motion to pretermit Cantu’s request for a waiver of removal pursuant to former 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) and ordering Cantu removed from the United States. Cantu contends that the BIA erred by determining that he was ineligible for relief pursuant to § 1182(c). The Respondent moves for summary affirmance or, in the alternative, an extension of time to file a brief. All of Cantu’s arguments in support of his petition for review are foreclosed by our precedent. See Vo v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 363 (5th Cir.2007); Avilez-Granados v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 869, 871-72 (5th Cir. 2007); Requena-Rodriguez v. Pasquarell, 190 F.3d 299, 308-09 (5th Cir.1999). IT IS ORDERED that the Respondent’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED and Cantu’s petition for review is DENIED. Respondent’s alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED as MOOT.

*

¶2 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

/267/fappx/321 · .json · Public domain