Case ID: f-appx_446/html/0851-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Felipe De Jesus HERNANDEZ-PADILLA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-75291.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Nov. 6, 2009.
    Filed Aug. 8, 2011.
    Bernadette Willeke Connolly, Law Offices of Bernadette W. Connolly, San Jose, CA, for Petitioner.
    Kristin A. Cabral, Esquire, Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, Michael Ferrara, Esquire, Holly Smith, Senior Litigation Counsel, Benjamin Zeitlin, Trial, U.S. Dept of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, CANBY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER

Respondent’s Petition for Panel Rehearing is GRANTED. The memorandum disposition filed on April 27, 2010, 877 Fed. Appx. 678, is amended by the memorandum disposition filed concurrently with this order. No further petitions for rehearing or petitions for rehearing en banc will be entertained.

AMENDED MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Felipe de Jesus Hernandez-Padilla petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of cancellation of removal. We originally held that, “[bjecause Petitioner’s case is in all relevant ways identical to the petitioner’s case in Nunez-Reyes v. Holder, [602 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir.2010) (per curiam) ], and in the petitioner’s case in Rice v. Holder, 597 F.3d 952 (9th Cir.2010), we grant the petition for review.” Hernandez-Padilla v. Holder, 377 Fed.Appx. 678, 679 (9th Cir.2010) (unpublished decision). Sitting en banc, we overruled the three-judge panel decisions in Nunez-Reyes and Rice. Nunez-Reyes v. Holder, 646 F.3d 684, 694-94 (9th Cir.2011) (en banc). For the same reasons as stated in our en banc decision, we must deny the petition for review in this case.

Petition DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.