Case ID: f-appx_277/html/0675-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lauriano Cervantes MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-73303.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 22, 2008.
    
    Filed May 5, 2008.
    Gary Finn, Law Offices of Gary Finn, Indio, CA, for Petitioner.
    Mary Jane Candaux, Joanne E. Johnson, Jennifer L. Lightbody, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, CAS—
    
      District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: GRABER, FISHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Lauriano Cervantes Mendoza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252, Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 1159, 1163 (9th Cir.2006), and we review questions of law de novo, id. We dismiss the petition for review in part and deny it in part.

We lack jurisdiction to review Cervantes Mendoza’s due process contention, as it was not exhausted before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (exhaustion is mandatory and jurisdictional).

The BIA correctly concluded that Cervantes Mendoza’s conviction was final for immigration purposes. See Grageda v. INS, 12 F.3d 919, 921 (9th Cir.1993) (“[Bjecause Grageda had exhausted his direct appeals and because the coram nobis petitions were collateral attacks, his conviction was final [for immigration purposes].”).

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