T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he H onor abl e M a tthe w F . K e nne l l y , U ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tJ udge f or ** the N orthe rn D i s tr i c tof I l l i noi s , s i tt i ng byde s i gna t i on. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T AR AC E L I GU Z MAN, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 73933 A ge nc yN o. A 074- 385- 546 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls A r gue d N ove m be r4, 2010 S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r30, 2010 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B e f o r e : KO Z I NS KI , C h i e f

J u d g e , R YME R , C i r c u i tJ u d g e , a n dKE NN E L L Y, D i stri ctJudg e. ** 

# FI LED DE C 14 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSA ra ce l i G uzm an, a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f M exi co, pet i t i on s f or re vi ew of an o r d e rr e in s ta tin g h e rJ a n u a ry1 0 , 1 9 9 6 o r d e ro f e x c lu s io n a n dd e p o rta tio n . W e d e n yth e p e titio n . I G uz m a n’ s appl i c a t i on t o a dj us the rs t a tus w a s notde ni e d on the ba s i s of the t en-y ear bari n IN A § 2 12 (a )( 9)(C ), bu tbecause of herJanu ary 10, 19 96 re m ov al and b arfr om ent er i ng the U ni t ed S t at es “ for aperi od of on e y ear. ” T he on e- ye ar b a rw a s in e f

f e c t a t th e tim e o f

h e rr e m o v a l. 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 2 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( A ) ( 1 9 9 4 ) . R ei nst at em entof re m ov al w as ordered pursuantt o IN A § 2 41 (a )( 5), w hi ch appl i es r e tr o a c tiv e ly . Ferna ndez -V arga s v . G on zales , 5 4 8 U . S . 3 0 , 3 3 (2 0 0 6 ). T h u s, nei ther the deni al of G uzm an’ s app l i ca t i on no r the re i nst at em entof the pri or order ha d a n i m pe rm i s s i bl e r e tr oa c t i ve e f f e c t . G uz m a n doe s notc ha l l e nge a nyof the f a c tu a l p r e d ic a te s f

o rr e in s ta te m e n t. Se e P a d illa v . A s h c r o ft , 334 F . 3d 921, 925 (9th C i r. 20 03 ).

I I G uzm an di d n otse ek di sc re t i on ary w ai ver unt i l af t erher r em ov al order w as r e i ns t a t e d. T hi s m e a nttha ts he w a s i ne l i gi bl e f or“ a nyr e l i e f

, ” i nc l udi ng a d ju s tm e n t o f

s ta tu s . 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 3 1 ( a ) ( 5 ) ; c f . Du r a n - Go n z a le s v . DH S , 508 F . 3d12 27 , 12 36 (9th C i r. 20 07 ). A ny error i n the 20 09 deni al s of herw ai ver

ap p lic a tio n s is h a rm le s s . Se e P a d illa , 3 3 4 F .3 da t 9 2 4

– 2 5 . II I G u z m a n h a d n o r ig h t to c o u n s e l in th e r e in s ta te m e n t p r o c e e d in g b e c au s e it w a s notbe f

or e a n i m m i gr a t i on j udge . Moral es -I zqui erdo v. G on zales , 486 F . 3d 48 4, 49 7 (9th C i r. 20 07 ) ( en banc). T hu s, she c anno tcl ai m her a tt orney w as i ne f f e c t i ve dur i ng the pr oc e e di ng. N orc a n s he c l a i m tha tc ouns e l w a s i ne f f e c t i ve in f a ilin g to f

ile a n I - 2 1 2 w a iv e rap p lic a tio n . See B alam -Chu c v . Mukasey , 547 F . 3d 1044, 1050–51 ( 9th C i r . 2008) . D H S w a s n’ tobl i ge d t o a l l ow he rt o f i l e f or c a n c e lla tio n o f

r e m o v a l, a s s h e n e v e rs o u g h t th a t r e lie f . Se e Fe rnandez - V

ar gas , 548 U . S . a t42 n. 9. G uz m a n i s nots i m i l a r l ys i tua t e d t o the a l i e n i n In re C isn ero sG on zales , 23 I . & N . D e c . 668, 668- 69 ( B I A 2004) , w ho ha d appl i e d f or c a nc e l l a t i on of

r e m ova l pr i ort o hi s r e m ova l pr oc e e di ng. H e rr e m a i ni ng due p r o c e s s a r g u m e n ts la c km e r it. P E T I T I ON DE NI E D.