Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
20 opinions for “Jose Francisco Zavala”
Zavala v. Ashcroftpublic domain
MEMORANDUM** Jose Bedolla Zavala, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision summarily dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s decision finding him removable due to his guilty plea conviction on one count of possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, in violation of Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11377(a). Our jurisdiction over Za
Zavala-Alvarez v. Chertoffpublic domain
MEMORANDUM**** Jose Cruz Zavala-Alvarez, a native and citizen of Mexico, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition which challenged the order of removal entered by an immigration judge and affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals. We affirm. (1) We note that following briefing and submission, the REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub.L. No. 109-13, 119 St
Zavala v. Ashcroftpublic domain
MEMORANDUM** Jose Luis Zavala, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reconsider and reopen deportation proceedings. We lack jurisdiction to review petitions filed by aliens who are deportable because they committed an “aggravated felony.” See Rosales-Rosales v. Ashcroft, 347 F.3d 714, 718 (9th
Zavala v. Bellpublic domain
453 F.Supp. 55 (1978) Salvador ZAVALA, Plaintiff, v. Griffin B. BELL, Attorney General, David Ilchert, as the District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service of San Francisco, Defendants; and related actions. Civ. Nos. C-77-2883-RHS, C-78-0014-RHS, C-78-0041-RHS, C-78-0172-RHS and C-78-0173-RHS. United States District Court, N. D. California. June 16, 1978.
VACATE AND AFFIRM IN PART, REVERSE IN PART, AND REMAND and Opinion Filed October 21st, 2024 In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-22-01077-CV JOSE LUIS VARELA AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MARIA SOLEDAD VARELA DE LOPEZ (DECEASED), CARMEN HERNANDEZ, JOSE HERNANDEZ, MARICELA SILVA, ELIGIO SILVA, AND PEDRO ROSTRO, Appellants
VACATE AND AFFIRM IN PART, REVERSE IN PART, AND REMAND and Opinion Filed March 26, 2024 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-22-01077-CV JOSE LUIS VARELA AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MARIA SOLEDAD VARELA DE LOPEZ (DECEASED), CARMEN HERNANDEZ, JOSE HERNANDEZ, MARICELA SILVA, ELIGIO SILVA, AND PEDRO ROSTRO, Appellants
Cabrera v. Gonzalespublic domain
MEMORANDUM *** Jose Antonio Zavala Cabrera, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) summary affirmance without opinion of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. We lack jurisdi
Jose Antonio Torres Flamenco v. Statepublic domain
NUMBER 13-12-00345-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG JOSE ANTONIO TORRES FLAMENCO, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. On appeal from the 430th District Court
Pena, Jose Luis v. Statepublic domain
Pena v. State Bar of Texas NUMBER 13-94-303-CV JOSE LUIS PEÑA v. THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS On appeal from the 197th District Court of Cameron County, Texas. O P I N I O N Before Justices Dorsey, Hinojosa and
ORDER The opinion filed March 26, 2003, is amended as follows: Slip opinion at 4373-4374 [2003 WL 1542642]: eliminating the final two paragraphs in Part II. OPINION RYMER, Circuit Judge. Jose Cedano-Viera is a native and citizen of Mexico who entered the United States as a l
Jose J. Padilla-Padilla Guadalupe D. Padilla-Enriquez Adela Enriquez v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney Generalpublic domain
WILLIAM A. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge: Based on advice of counsel, the Padillas filed an application for asylum shortly before the effective date of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA” or “Act”). After the Act’s effective date, the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) 1
Galindo v. Mukaseypublic domain
MEMORANDUM ** In these consolidated petitions, Jose Maria Ochoa Galindo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order, No. 05-76436, and for review of the BIA order denying his motion to reopen, No. 06-74491. We review de novo questions of law, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft,
Hernandez v. Gonzalespublic domain
MEMORANDUM ** Jose Jacob Sedaño Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming without opinion an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings. See Ram v. INS, <
Perez-Duran v. Mukaseypublic domain
MEMORANDUM ** Jose Juan Perez-Duran, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for lawful permanent resident cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and claims of due process violations, Vasquez-Zava
Torres-Garcia v. Holderpublic domain
MEMORANDUM ** In these consolidated petitions for review, Jose Santos Torres-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal and denying his subsequent motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Vasquez-Zaval
Hernandez-Sanchez v. Mukaseypublic domain
MEMORANDUM ** Jose Daniel Hernandez-Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision pretermitting his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Ci
Torres-Garcia v. Holderpublic domain
MEMORANDUM ** In these consolidated petitions for review, Jose Santos Torres-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal and denying his subsequent motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Vasquez-Zaval
Monreal v. Mukaseypublic domain
MEMORANDUM ** Samuel Rodriguez Monreal and Estela Duran De Rodriguez, married natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their *133applications for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We rev
Hernandez v. Mukaseypublic domain
MEMORANDUM ** Ignacio Morales Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition
Perez v. Ashcroftpublic domain
MEMORANDUM ** Jose Avila Perez and his wife Rosa Maria Avila, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“U”) order denying cancellation of removal and dismissing their motion to terminate removal proceedings and initiate deportation proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We revi