Case ID: f-appx_243/html/0347-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jesus Tovar CORTEZ, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-72290.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 24, 2007.
    
    Filed Sept. 27, 2007.
    Law Offices of Joseph M. Bacho, El Centro, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, James A. Hunolt, Esq., Carol Federighi, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Peter D. Keisler is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Acting Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jesus Tovar Cortez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s order denying his applications for cancellation of removal, adjustment of status, registry, and voluntary departure. We deny the petition for review.

Cortez waived any challenge to the agency’s dispositive findings that he is ineligible for cancellation of removal due to his crime of moral turpitude and ineligible for adjustment of status due to his unlawful status. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (court of appeals will not ordinarily consider matters not argued in opening brief). Consequently, we do not reach his remaining contentions.

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