Case ID: f-appx_72/html/0575-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jose Abel MORENO-CORONA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 01-71629. Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 21, 2003.
    
    Decided July 29, 2003.
    Before LEAVY, HAWKINS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The court sua sponte changes the docket to reflect that John Ashcroft, Attorney General, is the proper respondent. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect the above caption.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Abel Moreno-Corona, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his application for suspension of deportation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 512 (9th Cir.2001). We review de novo, id. at 513, and we deny the petition.

Moreno-Corona argues that the BIA erred in applying the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act’s (“IIRIRA”) stop-time provision, IIR-IRA § 309(c)(5), to his application for suspension of deportation. The BIA properly applied the stop-time provision because the stop-time provision applies to all applications for suspension of deportation that were pending on the date of IIRIRA’s enactment. See Ram, 243 F.3d at 516. Under the stop-time provision, Moreno-Corona stopped accruing time towards the continuous physical presence requirement on September 24,1996, when the Immigration and Naturalization Service issued the order to show cause. See id. at 514-16. Moreno-Corona’s contentions that the government should be equitably estopped from applying the stop-time rule and that the rule violates his due process rights are unpersuasive in light of our precedent. See id. at 516-17.

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.