Case ID: f-appx_74/html/0844-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Alfredo VIDRIO-OSUNA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-70763.
    Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 8, 2003.
    
    Decided Sept. 16, 2003.
    Alfredo Vidrio-Osuna, pro se, Taft, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Los Angeles District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Michael T. Dougherty, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Michelle R. Slack, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    
      Before PREGERSON, THOMAS and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument and denies petitioner's motion for oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alfredo Vidrio-Osuna, a federal prisoner and native of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings as untimely and for failure to raise new evidence. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, Salta v. INS, 314 F.3d 1076, 1078 (9th Cir.2002), and deny the petition.

Our decision in Perdomo-Padilla v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 964, 965 (9th Cir.2003), forecloses Vidrio-Osuna’s contention that he is a national of the United States not subject to removal because he has indicated his complete allegiance to the United States by filing an application for naturalization.

Vidrio-Osuna’s remaining contentions also lack merit.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.