Maria Arechiga-Pena v. Loretta E. Lynch

MEMORANDUM ** Maria Acela Arechiga-Pena, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision pretermitting her application for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Monet v. INS, 791 F.2d 752, 753 (9th Cir.1986). We deny the petition for review. Arechiga-Pena concedes that under controlling precedent lawful permanent resident status granted by fraud or mistake is void ab initio. See Shin v. Holder, 607 F.3d 1213, 1217 (9th Cir.2010) (“Although the facts of [prior cases] involve acts of personal fraud or misrepresentation, their holdings broadly deem all grants of LPR status that were not in substantive compliance with the immigration laws to be void ab initio.”); Monet, 791 F.2d at 753 (“Admission is not lawful if it is regular only in form. The term ‘lawfully denotes compliance with substantive legal requirements, not mere procedural regularity[.]” (citation and quotation marks omitted)). We decline Arechiga-Pena’s request to limit that precedent to cases where permanent resident status was granted by fraud alone. See United States v. Vasquez-Ramos, 531 F.3d 987, 991 (9th Cir.2008) (‘We are bound by circuit precedent unless there has been a substantial change in relevant circumstances, or a subsequent en banc or Supreme Court decision that is clearly irreconcilable with our prior holding.” (internal citations omitted)). Arechiga-Pena’s contentions regarding 8 U.S.C. § 1256 and rescission are foreclosed by this court’s holding in Monet v. INS, where we noted that § 1256 pertains to rescission of permanent resident status, and “does not apply to bar deportation proceedings against an adjusted alien” and therefore we “exclude[d] application of the five year limitations period to deportation proceedings regardless of the method of the alien’s admission.” Monet, 791 F.2d at 754. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. Footnotes [**] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid *370 ed by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.