Case ID: f-appx_108/html/0441-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gonzalo PERALTA CUEVAS, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-72368, [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 9, 2004.
    
    Decided Aug. 20, 2004.
    Gonzalo Peralta Cuevas, El Monte, CA, pro se.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, 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, William C. Minick, Janice K. Redfern, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, RAWLINSON and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gonzalo Peralta Cuevas, a native and citizen of Mexico appearing pro se, petitions pro se for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider the denial of his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

Peralta has waived any challenge to the BIA’s order denying reconsideration by failing to address it in his opening brief to this court. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996).

To the extent Peralta seeks review of the BIA’s January 31, 2003 order dismissing his appeal of an immigration judge’s decision that he was ineligible for cancellation of removal for lack of a qualifying relative, we lack jurisdiction to consider it, because the petition for review is not timely as to that order. See id. at 1258.

We do not consider Peralta’s contention that he had settled expectations of placement in suspension of deportation proceedings, see Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft, 291 F.3d 594, 599 (9th Cir.2002), because he failed to administratively exhaust this issue before the BIA, see Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.