Case Name: RYOJI NISHINO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-16
Citations: 185 F. App'x 608
Docket Number: No. 05-71043
Parties: RYOJI NISHINO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before KLEINFELD, PAEZ, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 185
Pages: 608–609

Head Matter:
RYOJI NISHINO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-71043.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 12, 2006.
Decided June 16, 2006.
Kouros Lahooti, Esq., Lahooti Law Offices, Woodland Hills, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Barry J. Pettinato, Esq., Jennifer Paisner, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div., Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before KLEINFELD, PAEZ, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ryoji Nishino, a native and citizen of Japan, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") dismissing as untimely his appeal from an immigration judge's removal order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and deny the petition for review.
Nishino's opening brief states that he "caused his notice of appeal [to the BIA] to be sent by Express U.S. Mail Overnight service on January 8, 2005." There is no evidence in the record to support this statement. See Gafoor v. INS, 231 F.3d 645, 655 (9th Cir.2000) ("[0]ur review of BIA decisions is generally limited to the record."). Nishino nonetheless contends that the BIA's application of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38 to dismiss his appeal as untimely violated due process. Reviewing de novo, see Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir.2006), we disagree. Unlike the petitioner in Gonzalez-Julio v. INS, 34 F.3d 820 (9th Cir.1994), Nishino has not demonstrated that the applicable regulation "results in uncertainty and arbitrary results." Id. at 825.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.