Case ID: f-appx_130/html/0885-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Pedro Ochoa VIRGIN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-71333.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 9, 2005.
    
    Decided May 12, 2005.
    Pedro Ochoa Virgin, Riverside, CA, pro se.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: PREGERSON, CANBY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Alberto R. Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Pedro Ochoa Virgin, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Ochoa Virgin’s contentions challenging the denial of his application for cancellation of removal, because the petition for review is untimely as to the BIA’s order denying cancellation. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1257-58 (9th Cir.1996) (finding statutory time limit both mandatory and jurisdictional).

Although the petition for review is timely as to the BIA’s order denying Ochoa Virgin’s motion for reconsideration, we do not consider this issue because Ochoa Virgin does not challenge it on appeal. See id. at 1259-60.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.