Case ID: f-appx_396/html/0419-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jose de Jesus ALCANTAR-NAVARRO, a.k.a. Jose Navarro, a.k.a. Jaime Pimental, a.k.a. Jose Alcantar Navarro, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-71934.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 22, 2010.
    Jose de Jesus Alcantar-Navarro, El Centro, CA, pro se.
    Kathryn McKinney, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose de Jesus Alcantar-Navarro, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss the petition for review.

Alcantar-Navarro has not challenged the BIA’s determination that he is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) (conviction for violation of law related to a controlled substance) and (a)(2)(C) (certain firearms offenses). We need not consider Alcantar-Navarro’s contention that his convictions are not aggravated felonies, because the BIA stated that the crimes were not aggravated felonies.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision denying cancellation of removal. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005).

Alcantar-Navarro’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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