Case ID: f-appx_362/html/0815-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Pedro Gilberto RIOS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondents.
    No. 07-71521.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
    
    Filed Jan. 21, 2010.
    Pedro Gilberto Rios, El Centro, CA, pro se.
    CAC-Distriet 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, Ashley B. Han, Esquire, OIL, Joseph D. Hardy, Jr., Esquire, Trial, Linda S. Wendtland, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondents.
    Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Pedro Gilberto Rios, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order terminating deportation proceedings. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the petition because the IJ’s August 29, 2005, order was not a final order of deportation. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(47)(A), 1252(b)(9).

To the extent Rios challenges the March 10,1987, final deportation order, we lack jurisdiction to consider it 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 lack jurisdiction to consider Rios’ ineffective assistance of counsel contention because he failed to exhaust that issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

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