Court Opinion

ID: 7028968
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-24 06:26:17.576895+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:10:52.969677
License: Public Domain

MEMORANDUM2
Victoria Canillo, on her own behalf and on behalf of her three minor children (collectively “Petitioner”), petitions for review of the final order of deportation entered by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) on September 30, 1999. Petitioner was served with an order to show cause (“OSC”) on December 12, 1996 — -approximately four years and six months after she entered the United States. At a hearing on March 23, 1998, the Immigration Judge denied Petitioner’s application for suspension of deportation because Petitioner had failed to meet the continuous physical presence requirement before being served with the OSC and thus was statutorily ineligible for suspension. On appeal, the BIA affirmed.
Petitioner contends that she 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 her case. Petitioner’s arguments challenging the application of the stop-time rule are foreclosed by our recent decision in Ram v. INS, No. 99-70918, 2001 WL 173309 (9th Cir. Feb. 8, 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 *649to 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.