Court Opinion

ID: 7028927
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-24 06:24:39.542448+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:10:52.829646
License: Public Domain

MEMORANDUM1
2
Miguel Angel Perdomo (“Petitioner”) petitions for review of the final order of deportation entered by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) on May 28, 1999. Petitioner was served with an order to show cause (“OSC”) on May 30, 1996— approximately six years and ten months after he entered the United States. At a hearing on May 8, 1997, 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 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).
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.