Case ID: f-appx_458/html/0585-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ricardo RAMIREZ-GUTIERREZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-72291.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 25, 2011.
    
    Filed Nov. 1, 2011.
    
      Ricardo Ramirez-Gutierrez, Denair, CA, pro se.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Nehal Kamani, OIL, Patricia Ann Smith, Senior Litigation Counsel, Aric Allan Anderson, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ricardo Ramirez-Gutierrez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for a waiver under Section 212(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Ramirez-Gutierrez’s contention that he began lawfully residing continually in the United States when he took steps to establish substantial ties in the United States is unpersuasive. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h) (an alien previously admitted for lawful permanent residence is ineligible for a 212(h) waiver if the alien has not “lawfully resided continuously in the United States for a period of not less than 7 years immediately preceding the date of initiation of proceedings to remove the alien from the United States”).

We lack jurisdiction over Ramirez-Gutierrez’s contention that he began accruing lawful continuous residence when he filed his 1-130 petition because he did not raise the claim before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

Ramirez-Gutierrez’s equal protection argument is unavailing. Taniguchi v. Schultz, 303 F.3d 950, 957 (9th Cir.2002) (“[A] statute that limits the relief available to a certain class of aliens will be ‘valid unless wholly irrational.’ ”).

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.