Jesus Guillen-Orellana v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 15 July 1996, available at: https://www.refworld.org/cases,USA_CA_9,3ae6b66514.html [accessed 19 October 2022]
Comments
Submitted: 9 July, 1996; Filed: 15 July, 1996
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument
Disclaimer
This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States.
JESUS GUILLEN-ORELLANA, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. No. 95-70890 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT July 9, 1996 **, Submitted ** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4. July 15, 1996, FILED
Prior History:
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. INS No. A71-617-813.
Disposition:
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Counsel:
JESUS GUILLEN-ORELLANA, Petitioner, Pro se, San Jose, CA. For IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent: Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA. Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, San Francisco, CA. OIL, David V. Bernal, Attorney, John Andre, Attorney, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Civil Division, Washington, DC.
Judges:
Before: HUG, Chief Judge, and SCHROEDER and POOLE, Circuit Judges.
Opinion:
MEMORANDUM * * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Jesus Guillen-Orellana, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissal of her appeal of the immigration judge's denial of applications for asylum and withholding of deportation. The BIA based its dismissal on its conclusion that Guillen failed to file a timely notice of appeal with the BIA. In her brief with this court, Guillen fails to address the timeliness issue, and instead argues that she should be granted asylum. Because this "court's review is limited to the decision of the BIA," Elnager v. INS, 930 F.2d 784, 787 (9th Cir. 1991), we conclude that Guillen has waived her right to challenge the BIA's dismissal based on an untimely notice of appeal. We will not consider Guillen's challenge to the immigration judge's denial of her asylum application. Id. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
