Case ID: f-appx_475/html/0196-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Cristobal HERNANDEZ-GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-70035.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 17, 2012.
    
    Filed July 27, 2012.
    Hector Ricardo Ortega, Ortega, Canossa & Associates, PLC, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Oil, Channah Farber, 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: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Cristobal Hernandez-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Guzman v. INS, 318 F.3d 911, 912 n. 1 (9th Cir.2003) (per curiam). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review Gonzalez-Hernandez’s challenge to the BIA’s underlying order dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture claims because this petition is not timely as to that decision. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

We reject Gonzalez-Hernandez’s contention that he qualifies as an unaccompanied alien child under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008. See 6 U.S.C. § 279(g)(2)(C). Accordingly, his challenge to the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen fails.

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.