Case ID: f-appx_358/html/0881-01.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

Jorge RODRIGUEZ-ALONSO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-70025.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 17, 2009
    
    Filed Dec. 7, 2009.
    Alan R. Diamante, Esq., Law Offices of Alan R. Diamante, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Kevin Conway, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., 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

Jorge Rodriguez-Alonso, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 620 (9th Cir.2006). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

To the extent Rodriguez-Alonso challenges the BIA’s June 29, 2006, order dismissing his underlying appeal, we lack jurisdiction because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

We also lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of Rodriguez-Alonso’s motion to reopen, which introduced further evidence of hardship to his United States citizen children. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 600 (9th Cir.2006) (“Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) ... bars jurisdiction where the question presented is essentially the same discretionary issue originally decided.”). It follows that we lack jurisdiction to review Rodriguez-Alonso’s contention that the BIA failed to explain adequately its reasons for denying the motion to reopen. See id. at 603-04.

Rodriguez-Alonso’s contention that the BIA violated due process by mischaracterizing the immigration judge’s weighing of the evidence is unavailing.

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.