Case ID: f-appx_372/html/0701-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Raul LOMELI-ROBLES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-72014.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 16, 2010.
    
    Filed March 24, 2010.
    Camille K. Cook, Esq., Jeremy M. Ga-són, Esq., Robert W. Yarra, PLC, Fresón, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of The District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, District Counsel, Office of The District Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, AZ, Eric W. Mar-steller, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Raul Lomeli-Robles, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for relief under former § 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Mielewczyk v. Holder, 575 F.3d 992, 994 (9th Cir.2009), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s discretionary denial of Lomeli-Robles’ application for § 212(c) relief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii); Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 923 (9th Cir.2007).

Lomeli-Robles’ contention that the IJ applied an incorrect legal standard in adjudicating his application for § 212(c) relief is not persuasive.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.