Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eduardo HERNANDEZ-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-10
Citations: 269 F. App'x 644
Docket Number: No. 06-30433
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eduardo HERNANDEZ-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 269
Pages: 644–644

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eduardo HERNANDEZ-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-30433.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 26, 2008.
Filed March 10, 2008.
Shawn N. Anderson, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Yakima, WA, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Diane E. Hehir, Esq., Federal Defenders of Eastern Washington and Idaho, Yakima, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Eduardo Hernandez-Hernandez appeals from the district court's order denying his motion to dismiss the indictment charging him with being an alien in the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Hernandez-Hernandez contends that the district court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the indictment because his underlying deportation was invalid. We conclude that Hernandez-Hernandez has not demonstrated a plausible ground for relief from deportation, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h). See United States v. Muro-Inclan, 249 F.3d 1180, 1185-86 (9th Cir.2001). Although Hernandez-Hernandez contends that his deportation is causing extreme hardship to his father, a lawful permanent resident, his contention is belied by the fact that his father previously lived in the United States for at least twelve years before his arrival. See id.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.