402 F. App'x 314
9th Cir.
2010

Hana HILSENRATH and Oliver Hilsenrath, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Nana Hilsenrath; et al., Plaintiffs, v. The SWISS CONFEDERATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-17127

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Filed Nov. 2, 2010.

Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.*

Hana Hilsenrath, Washington, DC, pro se.

Oliver Hilsenrath, Washington, DC, pro se.

Stephan E. Becker, Esquire, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Washington, DC, Sharon L. O‘Grady, Esquire, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: O‘SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN and BEA, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM **

Hana Hilsenrath and Oliver Hilsenrath appeal pro se the district court‘s judgment dismissing their action against the Swiss Confederation and Swiss government officials alleging violation of their rights under the United States Constitution. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Af-Cap, Inc. v. Chevron Overseas (Congo) Ltd., 475 F.3d 1080, 1085-86 (9th Cir.2007), and we affirm.

The Hilsenraths alleged that the Swiss Confederation, the Federal Attorney General of Switzerland and an employee of the Swiss Attorney General violated the Hilsenraths’ constitutional rights when they froze the Hilsenraths’ Swiss bank assets during the course of a criminal investigation into allegedly illicit financial dealings. The district court properly dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the Swiss government and its employees are immune from this action under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330, 1602 et seq. (“FSIA“) and the Hilsenraths did not establish the applicability of any of the FSIA‘s exceptions to sovereign immunity. See Security Pacific Nat. Bank v. Derderian, 872 F.2d 281, 285 (9th Cir.1989) (if the “claim does not fall within one of the exceptions, the court cannot entertain the action” and it must dismiss the action against the foreign state).

AFFIRMED.

Alfonso Solis NAVARRO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-74973

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Filed Nov. 2, 2010.

Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.*

Murray David Hilts, Law Offices of Murray D. Hilts, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.

Kevin James Conway, Esquire, Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: O‘SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM **

Alfonso Solis Navarro, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge‘s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and constitutional claims, Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.

Navarro does not challenge the agency‘s determination that he is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) based on his conviction for assault with a deadly weapon in violation of Cal.Penal Code § 245(a)(1).

Navarro is ineligible for relief under former section 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996), because his ground of removability lacks a statutory counterpart in a ground of inadmissibility. See 8 C.F.R. § 1212.3(f)(5); see also Aguilar-Ramos v. Holder, 594 F.3d 701, 706 (9th Cir.2010).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

Notes

*
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
**
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.