Case ID: f-appx_390/html/0707-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jose Francisco CHAVEZ-REGALADO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-70266.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 19, 2010.
    
    Filed Aug. 2, 2010.
    Anthony O. Egbase, Law Offices of Anthony O. Egbase & Associates, Los Ange-les, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Jacob Bashyrov, Esquire, Francis William Fraser, I, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Marion Guyton, Esquire, Trial, 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: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Francisco Chavez-Regalado, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Avilar-Sanchez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 1037, 1039 — 10 (9th Cir.2007), and we deny the petition for review.

The agency did not err in concluding that Chavez-Regalado did not lawfully acquire permanent resident status in 1993 following his 1990 conviction for possession for sale of cocaine and was therefore ineligible for section 212(c) relief. See Monet v. INS, 791 F.2d 752, 754 (9th Cir.1986).

We lack jurisdiction to review Chavez-Regalado’s contention that he is statutorily eligible for cancellation of removal because he failed to exhaust this issue before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

Chavez-Regalado’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Chavez-Regalado’s request for judicial notice is denied. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir.1996).

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