Case ID: f-appx_91/html/0607-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Simon Gonzalez SEVILLA; Maria Dolores Ramon-Sevilla, Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-71476.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 11, 2004.
    
    Decided March 24, 2004.
    Teresa Salazar, Esq., San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
    Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Barry J. Pettinato, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before FERNANDEZ, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Because the Immigration and Naturalization Service no longer exists as a separate agency and this appeal challenges a decision issued by a component of the Department of Justice, we substitute the Attorney General for the INS.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Simon Gonzalez Sevilla and Maria Dolores Ramon Sevilla petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of their application for suspension of deportation. They claim that they are entitled to relief because the BIA did not notify them of the possibility of asking for “repapering” pursuant to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, § 309(c)(3), Pub.L. 104-208, 110 Stat. at 3009-626 and the proposed regulations thereunder. See Delegation of Authority to the Immigration and Naturalization Service To Terminate Deportation Proceedings and Initiate Removal Proceedings, 65 Fed.Reg. 71,273 (proposed Nov. 30, 2000) (to be codified at 8 C.F.R. §§ 240.80-82). We dismiss the petition.

Whatever the merits of their claim might be, an issue on which we do not opine, the fact remains that we lack jurisdiction over it because they never presented it to the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(c) (1994); Liu v. Waters, 55 F.3d 421, 425-26 (9th Cir.1995); Rashtabadi v. INS, 23 F.3d 1562, 1567 (9th Cir.1994); Vargas v. U.S. Dept. of Immigration & Naturalization, 831 F.2d 906, 907-08 (9th Cir.1987); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d). Thus, we are constrained to dismiss the petition.

Petition 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.
     
      
      . This case is governed by the transitional rules of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. See Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1183 (9th Cir.2001); Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997).