Case Name: Jose Antonio ZARAGOZA HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-26
Citations: 305 F. App'x 392
Docket Number: No. 05-70905
Parties: Jose Antonio ZARAGOZA HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 305
Pages: 392–392

Head Matter:
Jose Antonio ZARAGOZA HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-70905.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 17, 2008.
Filed Dec. 26, 2008.
Dozie Ike Ezeife, Esquire, Samuel U. Nwobodo, Esquire, Emeziem & Ogbu, LLP, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner.
Shelley Goad, Senior Litigation Counsel, Oil, Linda S. Wendtland, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, TROTT, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Antonio Zaragoza Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") reissued order sustaining the Department of Homeland Security's appeal from an immigration judge's decision granting his application for cancellation of removal. We grant respondent's unopposed motion to supplement the administrative record. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction over Zaragoza Hernandez's petition for review because it was filed more than 30 days after the BIA's reissued decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). Zaragoza Hernandez has not established that he was misled about the need for a timely petition for review of the reissued decision or that the BIA improperly mailed its reissued decision to him. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188-89 (9th Cir.2003) (court lacked jurisdiction over late petition where BIA mailed decision to petitioner's address of record and counsel had not filed a notice of appearance with the BIA).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.