Case Name: Manuel Antonio ASTETE-DIAZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-03
Citations: 698 F. App'x 548
Docket Number: No. 13-73081
Parties: Manuel Antonio ASTETE-DIAZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 698
Pages: 548–549

Head Matter:
Manuel Antonio ASTETE-DIAZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-73081
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted September 26, 2017
OCTOBER 3, 2017
Manuel Antonio Astete-Diaz, Las Vegas, NV, pro se.
Edward C. Durant, Oil, Claire Workman, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Qhief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Manuel Antonio Astete-Diaz, a native and citizen of Chile, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision granting voluntary departure. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Astete-Diaz's challenges to the BIA's April 2012 order denying his due process claims re garding a continuance and asylum relief, where this petition for review is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) ("The petition for review must be filed not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal."); Rizo v. Lynch, 810 F.3d 688, 691 (9th Cir. 2016) (a BIA order remanding solely for voluntary departure proceedings is a final order of removal).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.