Case ID: f-appx_168/html/0232-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Artemio Humberto MERIDA LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-76090.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.
    
    Decided Feb. 21, 2006.
    Artemio Humberto Merida Lopez, pro se.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Terri J. Scadron, Esq., Jennifer Levings, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    
      Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Artemio Humberto Merida Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision dismissing his appeal of an immigration judge’s order denying his application for special rule cancellation under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997. We dismiss the petition for review.

The agency concluded that petitioner was ineligible to apply for special rule cancellation. See Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, § 309(c)(5)(C)(i), Pub.L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (1996), as amended by the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997, § 203(2)(b), Pub.L. 105-100, 111 Stat. 2160 (1997) (found at 8 U.S.C. § 1101 note). We lack jurisdiction to consider this determination. See id. at § 309(c)(5)(C)(ii) (“A determination by the Attorney General as to whether an alien satisfies the requirements of clause (i) is final and shall not be subject to review by any court.”).

The voluntary departure period was stayed, and that stay will expire upon issuance of the mandate. See Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741, 750 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.