Case ID: f-appx_225/html/0526-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Enrique GUZMAN-CASTANEDA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-75814.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 12, 2007.
    
    Filed March 15, 2007.
    Enrique Guzman-Castaneda, Eloy, AZ, pro se.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, District Director, Office of the District Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Cynthia M. Parsons, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY, 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

Enrique Guzman-Castaneda, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction.

We lack jurisdiction to review Guzman-Castaneda’s petition because the claims raised regarding the effect of his 2002 conviction on his eligibility for cancellation of removal, as well as the IJ’s responsibility to inform him of available relief, were not exhausted before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (holding that exhaustion is mandatory and jurisdictional under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1)). We note also our recent holding in Garcia-Jimenez v. Gonzales, 472 F.3d 679 (9th Cir.2007), that “an alien who has received § 212(c) relief — at any time — cannot also receive § 1229b relief.” Id. at 682.

We grant Guzman-Castaneda’s motion to file a late reply brief. The Clerk shall file the brief received on October 20, 2006.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.