Case ID: f-appx_88/html/0258-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gildardo INZUNZA-INZUNZA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-70635.
    Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 17, 2004.
    
    Decided Feb. 25, 2004.
    Gildardo Inzunza-Inzunza, pro se, La Habra, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Los Angeles District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, John C. Cunningham, Cindy S. Ferrier, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before FERNANDEZ, W. FLETCHER, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gildardo Inzunza-Inzunza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary dismissal under 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(d)(2)® of his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir.2003). We dismiss the petition in part and deny it in part.

The IJ denied Inzunza-Inzunza’s application for cancellation of removal because Inzunza-Inzunza did not have a qualifying relative under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D). Because Inzunza-Inzunza failed to challenge this finding before the BIA, we lack jurisdiction to consider it on appeal. See Cortez-Acosta v. INS, 234 F.3d 476, 480 (9th Cir.2000) (per curiam).

Inzunza-Inzunza’s contention that the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act and the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act violate equal protection is foreclosed by Hernandez-Mezquita v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 1161, 1163-65 (9th Cir.2002), which held that in order to demonstrate an equal protection violation, a petitioner must show that a classification is wholly irrational.

Inzunza-Inzunza’s remaining contentions also lack merit.

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