Case ID: f-appx_309/html/0208-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ricardo PACHECO-MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-74900.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Jan. 13, 2009.
    
    Filed Jan. 20, 2009.
    Ricardo Pacheco-Martinez, Bakersfield, CA, pro se.
    OIL, Stacy Stiffel Paddack, John D. Williams, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, BYBEE, 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

Ricardo Pacheco-Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying, as untimely filed, his motion to reopen the underlying denial of his application for cancellation of removal based on his failure to establish the requisite hardship to a qualifying relative.

Petitioner has waived any challenge to the BIA’s order denying his motion to reopen by failing to raise any arguments related to the BIA’s dispositive determination that the motion to reopen was untimely. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996). This court lacks jurisdiction to review petitioner’s contention that the BIA should have reopened proceedings sua sponte. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002).

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