Case Name: Pancho IGLECIAS-VILLARANA, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-03-26
Citations: 10 F. App'x 454
Docket Number: No. 99-70915; INS No. A72-903-753
Parties: Pancho IGLECIAS-VILLARANA, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
Judges: Before WALLACE, SILVERMAN and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 10
Pages: 454–455

Head Matter:
Pancho IGLECIAS-VILLARANA, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
No. 99-70915.
INS No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 12, 2001.
Decided March 26, 2001.
Before WALLACE, SILVERMAN and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Pancho Iglecias-Villarana, ("petitioner") petitions for review of the final order of deportation entered by the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") on June 30, 1999. Petitioner was served with an order to show cause ("OSC") on April 29, 1995— approximately six years and seven months after he entered the United States. At a hearing on July 19, 1996, the Immigration Judge denied Petitioner's application for suspension of deportation. On appeal, the BIA affirmed.
Petitioner contends that he was eligible for suspension of deportation and challenges the BIA's decision that the "stop-time rule"—a new continuous physical presence requirement set forth in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, 110 Stat. 3009-625—bars such relief in his case. Petitioner's arguments challenging the application of the stop-time rule are foreclosed by our recent decision in Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510(9th Cir.2001). We do not consider Petitioner's eligibility, if any, for relief under the class action pending in the district court in accordance with Barahona-Gomez v. Reno, 167 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir.1999), supplemental opinion, 236 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir.2001). Our resolution of this case does not affect any interim or permanent relief awarded to members of the class certified in Barahona-Gomez.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.