Case ID: f-appx_394/html/0391-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rodolfo Alejandro Maldonado CRUZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-72802.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 10, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 1, 2010.
    Yevgeniy Chechenin, San Mateo, CA, for Petitioner.
    District Counsel, 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, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Claire L. Workman, U.S. Department of Justice ^Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, HAWKINS, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rodolfo Alejandro Maldonado Cruz, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) certified decision denying his application for adjustment of status. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Contrary to Maldonado Cruz’s contention, the BIA was not required to revisit his removability finding on remand because the IJ found Maldonado Cruz removable at his May 1, 1998, hearing based on his concession of removability and he never challenged that removability finding. See Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1178 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc) (finding of removability automatically reinstated upon subsequent denial of relief).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Maldonado Cruz’s voluntary departure claim because he did not exhaust this claim before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the agency).

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