Case ID: f-appx_444/html/0996-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Benigno Lacap VIRAY, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-74970.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted July 12, 2011.
    
    Filed July 25, 2011.
    Stephen John Coghlan, Esquire, Law Office of Stephen Coghlan, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Robbin Kinmonth Blaya, Esquire, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Charles Canter, Trial, 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: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Benigno Lacap Viray, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.

The agency properly concluded that Vi-ray was an alien seeking admission where he had not been “lawfully admitted for permanent residence.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(C); Segura v. Holder, 605 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir.2010) (an alien erroneously admitted for permanent residence has not been “lawfully admitted for permanent residence”); see also Kyong Ho Shin v. Holder, 607 F.3d 1213, 1217-18 (9th Cir.2010) (“[T]he issue of whether [a lawful permanent resident] retains her status until the conclusion of removal proceedings is distinct from whether she was ‘lawfully admitted’ in the first place.... ”).

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