Case ID: f-appx_590/html/0693-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rosa Maria JIMENEZ-GUDINO, aka Rosemary Contreras, aka Rosa Maria Hernandez, aka Rosemary Hernandez, aka Rosemary Jimenez, aka Rosa Maria Jiminez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. Rosa Maria Jimenez-Gudino, Petitioner, v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 11-71841, 11-72706.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued May 8, 2013.
    Resubmitted Jan. 22, 2014.
    Submission Deferred Nov. 3, 2014.
    Filed Jan. 22, 2015.
    Erica Britt Schommer, Rios & Cruz, PS, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
    •Matt Crapo, Oil, Cindy S. Ferrier, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Rosa Maria Jimenez-Gudino (“Jimenez”) petitions for review of two orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) that (1) affirmed an Immigration Judge’s denial of her motion to terminate proceedings and entry of a final order of removal, and (2) denied her motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

In a previous memorandum disposition, we held Jimenez’s petition in abeyance and transferred proceedings to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington for de novo review of Jimenez’s citizenship claim, in accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(5)(B). See Jimenez-Gudino v. Holder, 518 Fed.Appx. 593 (9th Cir.2013).

On October 31, 2014, the district court granted summary judgment to the government on Jimenez’s citizenship claim, in part because Jimenez failed to file an opposition to the government’s summary judgment motion. We see no error in the district court’s conclusion and, therefore, we deny the petition for review.

PETITION DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.