Case ID: f-appx_380/html/0713-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rafael RODRIGUEZ PEDRAZA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-71439.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 1, 2010.
    Rafael Rodriguez Pedraza, Buena Park, CA, pro se.
    David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Jeffery R. Leist, OIL, Stacy Stiffel Paddack, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. F. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rafael Rodriguez Pedraza, 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 denial of his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the BIA’s continuous physical presence determination, Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 847, 850-51 (9th Cir. 2004), and review de novo constitutional claims, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Rodriguez Pedraza did not meet his burden of establishing continuous physical presence, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(A), where the testimony of his three witnesses was materially inconsistent regarding Rodriguez Pedraza’s place and duration of residence after entry, cf. Lopez-Alvarado, 381 F.3d at 851-52.

We do not consider Rodriguez Pedraza’s hardship contention because his failure to establish continuous physical presence is dispositive. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(A).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s July 18, 2007, order denying Rodriguez Pedraza’s motion to reconsider because he failed to timely petition for review of that decision. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

Rodriguez Pedraza’s due process claim is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845 (9th Cir.2003).

We lack jurisdiction to review Rodriguez Pedraza’s contention that the agency acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act in issuing its streamlining regulations. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 703; 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Rodriguez Pedraza’s remaining contentions are unavailing.

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