Case ID: f-appx_256/html/0914-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hassan Hajiyusuf IMAN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-72790.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 9, 2007 .
    Filed Nov. 19, 2007.
    Hassan Hajiyusuf Iman, Richmond, CA, pro se.
    Angela D. Mayfield, Esq., Mayfield Legal, Manteca, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, David V. Bernal, Attorney, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Esq., Elizabeth J. Stevens, Esq., Liza S. Murcia, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and TIMLIN , Senior Judge.
    
      
       Michael B. Mukasey is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as 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).
    
    
      
       Honorable Robert J. Timlin, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Hassan Hajiyusuf Imán, a native of Somalia and citizen of Canada, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ summary affirmance of the Immigration Judge’s denial of his 1-212 application to reapply nunc pro tunc for admission. We lack jurisdiction to consider the discretionary denial of Iman’s application for admission and dismiss the petition for review. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii); Perez-Gonzalez v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 783, 788-89 (9th Cir.2004); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 654 (9th Cir.2007) (noting that the “case does not involve a challenge to the agency’s exercise of discretion” and that “[sjection 106 does not restore jurisdiction over discretionary determinations”).

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