Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

367 F. App'x 850

Ramirez-Rodriguez v. Holder

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided February 26, 2010

This page is marked noindex.

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2010-02-26

Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (§ 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))

Relies on Barron v. Ashcroft · Shobna Chandar Lata v. Immigration and Naturalization Service · Raquel Sanchez-Cruz v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Decided 2010-02-26

¶1 MEMORANDUM

¶2 Luis Ramirez-Rodriguez, 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”) removal order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Morales-Alegna v. Gonzales, 449 F.3d 1051, 1053 (9th Cir.2006), and due process claims, Sanchez-Cruz v. INS, 255 F.3d 775, 779 (9th Cir.2001). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

¶3 Ramirez-Rodriguez’s contention that a conviction under Cal.Penal Code § 422 does not categorically constitute a crime of violence is foreclosed by Rosales-Rosales v. Ashcroft, 347 F.3d 714, 717 (9th Cir.2003).

¶4 Ramirez-Rodriguez’s contention that the IJ violated his due process rights by refusing to continue his immigration proceedings fails because he did not establish good cause for a continuance. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a due process violation).

¶5 We lack jurisdiction to consider Ramirez-Rodriguez’s remaining contentions because he failed to exhaust them before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

¶6 PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

¶7 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

/367/fappx/850 · .json · Public domain