Case ID: f-appx_358/html/0852-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MEMORANDUM \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

J. Guadalupe MAGANA MARQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-72340.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
    
    Filed Nov. 30, 2009.
    Joseph M. Bacho, Esquire, Law Offices of Joseph M. Bacho, El Centro, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Jeffrey Ronald Meyer, Esquire, OIL, Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

J. Guadalupe Magana Marquez, 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 removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir.2004), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

Because Magana Marquez failed to demonstrate a gross miscarriage of justice, he may not at this point collaterally attack his 1997 deportation order. See Ramirez-Juarez v. INS, 683 F.2d 174, 175-76 (9th Cir.1980) (per curiam).

The BIA properly concluded that Magana Marquez is not eligible for a waiver under § 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act because he is no longer a legal permanent resident. See 8 C.F.R. § 1212.3(f)(1).

Magana Marquez failed to exhaust his remaining contentions. See Barron, 358 F.3d at 678 (this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the agency).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.