Case ID: f-appx_235/html/0634-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bernardo Pichardo MORENO; Maria Edna Sanchez De Pichardo, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-72311.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 13, 2007.
    
    Filed Aug. 22, 2007.
    Areg Kazaryan, Law Office of Areg Kazaryan, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, William C. Erb, Jr., Esq., Terri J. Scadron, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: KLEINFELD, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Bernardo Pichardo Moreno and Maria Edna Sanchez de Pichardo, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) streamlined order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying their motion to administratively close their deportation proceedings for repapering. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing de novo, Alcaraz v. INS, 384 F.3d 1150, 1158 (9th Cir.2004), we deny petition for review.

The IJ did not err in denying petitioners’ motion to close proceedings because petitioners failed to establish they were physically present for a continuous period of seven years prior to applying for suspension of deportation, and thus were ineligible for repapering. See id. at 1153-55 (laying out the criteria necessary for repapering).

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