NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ADAN PEREZ

- ZAZUETA,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 15

- 71952

Agency No. A200

- 569

- 599

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 12, 2018 **
Pasadena, California

Before: BEA and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and BASTIAN, *** District Judge.

Adan Perez

- Zazueta, a citizen of Mexico, petitions for r eview of the Board

of Immigration Appeal s ’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable S tanley Allen Bastian, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

APR 18 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

(“IJ”) decision finding Perez

- Zazueta ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8

U.S.C. § 1229b(1).

Reviewing de novo, Abdisalan v. Holder , 774 F.3d 517, 52 1 (9th Cir. 2014),

as amended (Jan. 6, 2015)

, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction over Perez

Zazueta’s petition for review

. Perez

- Zazueta failed to file a petition for review with

this Court within 30 days of the IJ’s final o rder of removal, as is requir ed under 8

U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(1). On May 6, 2014, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s conclusion finding

Perez

- Zazueta removable as charged and ineligi ble for cancellation of removal,

rendering the IJ’s removal order “final” for the purposes of 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(1).

Ortiz

- Alfaro v. Holder , 694 F.3d 955, 958 (9th Cir. 2012) (discussing 8 U.S.C.

§ 1101(a)(47) ). Perez

- Zazueta filed his petition for review on June 25, 2015, well

after the 30

- day deadline had passed. Because Perez

- Zazueta failed to adhere to the

30

- day dea dline for filing a petition for review, this Court lacks jurisdiction over

the present appeal. See Abdisalan , 774 F.3d at 521 ( “ This time limit [under 8

U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(1)] is ‘ mandatory and jurisdictional. ’ ” (quoting Stone v. I

. N

. S

. ,

514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995) ) )

.

We find unconvincing Perez

- Zazueta’s argument that his removal order did

not become final until the proceedings on remand were complete. T he fact that the

BIA remanded to the IJ for the limited purpose of granting a new period of

voluntary departure does not alter the finality of the removal order. See Pinto v.3

Holder , 648 F.3d 976, 980 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he BIA’ s decision denying asylum,

withholding of removal, and [Convention Against Torture] protection but

remanding to the IJ for voluntary departure proceedings is a final order of removal

. . . and, effectively, the only order that we can review. ”); see also Singh v. Lynch

,

835 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (same) ; Rizo v. Lynch , 810 F.3d

688 , 691 (9th Cir. 2016) (same)

.

Because we lack jurisdiction over the present appeal, we do not reach the

merits of Perez

- Zazueta’s argument that his convictions for indecent exposure

under Cal. Penal Code § 314(1) do not constitute crimes of moral turpitude.

PETITION DENIED.