Case ID: f-appx_479/html/0122-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Antonio CASTANEDA-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-72233.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
    
    Filed Sept. 17, 2012.
    Antonio Castaneda-Rodriguez, Stanton, CA, pro se.
    Nairi Simonian Gruzenski, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel lee, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    
      Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Antonio Castañeda-Rodríguez, 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 order of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Gil v. Holder, 651 F.3d 1000, 1003 (9th Cir.2011), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA properly declined to reinstate Castaneda-Rodriguez’s voluntary departure period for failure to timely submit proof of having posted his voluntary departure bond. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(c)(3)(ii). Although Castañeda-Rodríguez has submitted new evidence with his petition for review, our review is limited to the administrative record and we cannot consider evidence that was not before the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A). Castañeda-Rodríguez should have filed a motion to reconsider before the BIA.

We lack jurisdiction to review Castaneda-Rodriguez’s contention that he qualifies for cancellation of removal because he failed to raise that issue before the BIA and thereby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

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.