ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page

Advanced search

Immigration Daily


Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board



Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation


CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network


Chinese Immig. Daily


Connect to us

Make us Homepage



The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of free

Immigration LLC.

< Back to current issue of Immigration Daily < Back to current issue of Immigrant's Weekly

                           United States Court of Appeals
                                    Tenth Circuit
                                     AUG 10 2001
                                   PATRICK FISHER
                               FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
         LAGRIMAS R. DE GUZMAN,           
         v.                                         No.  00-9526
                                                 (No. A 26 607 207)
         IMMIGRATION &  NATURALIZATION          (Petition for Review)

         Before SEYMOUR and McKAY, Circuit Judges, and BRORBY, Senior Circuit 

              After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

         unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of 

         this appeal.  See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).  The case is 

         therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

         (1)     This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the 
         doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.  The court 
         generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order 
         and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
              Petitioner Lagrimas R. De Guzman seeks review of a final deportation 

         order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).  On appeal, she raises two 

         principal legal issues.  First, she challenges the BIA's application of the "stop-

         time rule" contained in section 309(c)(5) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and 

         Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA)(1) to her case.  Second, she 

         contends that she is nonetheless eligible for suspension of deportation due to 

         seven years' continuous physical presence in the United States following the 

         order to show cause that triggered her deportation proceedings.

              Respondent contends that the latter issue was not preserved for review 

         because petitioner did not raise the issue before the BIA.  Petitioner contends that 

         she raised the issue in a motion to reconsider filed with the BIA on the same date 

         she filed her petition for review with this court.  The BIA has since denied the 

         motion for reconsideration in an order dated December 8, 2000.  We agree with 

         petitioner that she raised this issue before the agency in her motion to reconsider. 

         Nonetheless, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review the issue because 

         petitioner failed to file a petition for review from the BIA's disposition of that motion.  
		 Timely filing of a petition for review is a mandatory prerequisite to 

         this court's exercise of jurisdiction.  Haroutunian v. INS, 87 F.3d 374, 375 

         (9th Cir. 1996).

              In Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386 (1995), the Supreme Court held that pending 

         motions for reconsideration do not toll the finality of a BIA deportation order.  Id. 

         at 405.  In so holding, it also stated that motions for reconsideration are separate, 

         final agency orders, and indicated that the proper procedure for appealing both 

         a deportation order and a subsequent denial of a motion for reconsideration is to 

         file two separate petitions for review which may be consolidated for review. 

         See id. at 395 ("Upon denial of reconsideration, the petitioner would file 

         a separate petition to review that second final order.").  Because petitioner here 

         did not file a petition for review within the prescribed time(2) after the BIA's 

         disposition of her motion for reconsideration, we cannot review her arguments 

         on an issue raised before the agency for the first time in that motion.

              Petitioner did file a timely petition for review from the BIA's deportation 

         order; therefore, we have jurisdiction to review the single remaining issue 

         pursuant to 8 U.S.C. . 1105a(a).  See Lockett v. INS, 245 F.3d 1126, 1128
         (1)     The IIRIRA significantly limited judicial review of agency immigration 
         decisions.  Because petitioner was issued a show cause order before April 1, 
         1997, and because the BIA's deportation order was entered more than thirty days 
         after September 30, 1996, the so-called "transitional rules" of the IIRIRA apply 
         topetitioner's case.  See Rivera-Jimenez v. INS, 214 F.3d 1213, 1216 n.5 
         (10thCir. 2000).
         (2)     The prescribed time is now thirty days under the transitional rules of the 
         IIRIRA.  Cruz-Navarro v. INS, 232 F.3d 1024, 1026 n.2 (9th Cir. 2000).
         (10th Cir. 2001).(3)  Our review of petitioner's legal argument is de novo; however, 

         we "accord deference to the BIA's legal determinations unless they are clearly 

         contrary to the statute's language or to congressional intent."  Id. (quotation 

         omitted).  Petitioner argues that application of the stop-time rule to her case is 

         unconstitutional because it is impermissibly retroactive.  We agree with 

         respondent that this argument is disposed of by Rivera-Jimenez v. INS, 214 F.3d 

         1213, 1217 (10th Cir. 2000), and reject it without further discussion.(4)  The 

         petition for review is DENIED. 

                                                 Entered for the Court
                                                 Stephanie K. Seymour
                                                 Circuit Judge

         (3)     Section 1105a was repealed by IIRIRA.  However, the repeal is effective 
         only as to final orders filed on or after September 30, 1996.  
         (4)     Respondent filed a motion for summary affirmance on this issue in light of 
         our decision in Rivera-Jimenez.  However, our rules preclude such a motion and 
         therefore it is denied.  See 10th Cir. R. 27.2 (A)(1).  Petitioner, in response to this 
         motion, requests that we "have an en banc court reconsider" Rivera-Jimenez. 
         This statement does not comport with federal requirements for a request for 
         enbanc consideration, see Fed. R. App. P. 35(b).  Further, we deny the request 
         for initial en banc consideration because petitioner's statement does not 
         demonstrate "an issue of exceptional public importance" or implicate "a panel 
         decision that conflicts with a decision of the United States Supreme Court or 
         ofthis court."  10th Cir. R. 35.1(A).