N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M AR IA AC ELA AR

EC HIGA-PENA, AKA Sa ra Le tic ia Pe ra le s , Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 13-71944 Age n c y No. A047-319-188 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Nove m be r 18, 2015 ** B e fore : TASHIM A , OW ENS, a nd FRIEDLAND, C irc uit Judge s. M aria Ac e la Are c h iga -Pe na , a

native and c itiz e n of M e x ic o, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ orde r dism issing he r a p p e a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s de c i sion pre te rm itting her a p plic ation for c anc e lla

tion of re m ova l unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1229b(a). W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 8 U.S.C . 

# FIL ED N OV 23 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).§ 1252. W e re vie wde novo que stions of la w . Mone t v . IN

S , 791 F.2d 752, 753 (9th C ir. 1986). W e d e ny the pe tition for re vie w. Are c higa -Pe na

c onc e de s tha

t unde r c ontrolling pre c e de nt la wful pe rm ane nt re side nt sta

tus gra nte d by fra ud or m ista

ke is void a

b initio. S

e e Shin v . Holde r , 607 F.3d 1213, 1217 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ Although the fa c ts of [prior c a se s] involve a c ts of pe rsona l fra

u d or m isre pre se n tation, the ir holdings broadly de e m a l l gra nts of LPR sta

t us tha t we re not in substa

ntive c om plia nc e with theim

m igrat ion la

ws to be void a b initio.” ); Mone t , 791 F.2d a t 753 (“ Adm ission is not la wful if it is re gula r only in form . The te rm

‘ la w fully ’ de note s c om

plia nc e with substa

ntive le ga l re quire m e nts, not m e re proc e dura l re gula rity [.] ” (c ita

tion a nd quota tion m arks om itte d)). W e de c line Are c higa -Pe na ’ s re que st to lim it tha t pre c e de nt to c a se s whe re pe rm a

ne nt re side nt sta

tus wa s gra

nte d by fra ud a lone . Se e Unite d State s v . Vasque

z-Ramos , 531 F.3d 987, 991 (9th C ir. 2008) (“ W e are bound by c irc uit pre c e de n t unle ss the re ha s be e n a substa ntia l c ha nge in re l e va

nt c irc um s ta nc e s , or a subse que nt e n ba

nc or Supre m e C ourt de c ision tha t is c le arly irre c onc i la

ble with our prior holding.” (inte rna l c ita

t ions omitte d)). Are c higa -Pe na ’ s c onte ntions re ga rding 8 U.S.C . § 1256 a

nd re sc ission a

re fore c lose d by

this c ourt’ s holding in Mone t v . IN S , whe re we note d tha

t § 1256 pe rta ins to re sc ission of perm ane nt re side nt sta tus, a nd “ d oe s not a

pply to ba r 1 3 - 7 1 9 4 4 2de porta

tion proc e e dings a ga inst a n a djuste d a lie n ” and the re fore we “ e x c lude [d] a pplic ation of the five y e ar lim ita tions pe riod to de

porta tion proc e e d ings re ga

rdle ss of the m e thod of thea lie n ’ s a dm ission.” Mone t , 791 F.2d a t 754. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 3 - 7 1 9 4 4 3