Case Name: Roberto ARROYO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-06-04
Citations: 328 F. App'x 385
Docket Number: No. 05-71958
Parties: Roberto ARROYO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: HALL, KLEINFELD and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 328
Pages: 385–385

Head Matter:
Roberto ARROYO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-71958.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted May 4, 2009.
Filed June 4, 2009.
Moisés Alcides Aviles, Aviles & Associates, San Bernardino, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Cindy S. Ferrier, Senior Litigation Counsel, Anna Nelson, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: HALL, KLEINFELD and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
To the extent that Arroyo's petition challenges the Immigration Judge's exercise of discretion, we dismiss it. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Ramirez-Perez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 1001, 1005 (9th Cir.2003). Insofar as Arroyo brings a due process claim based on alleged deficiencies in the Notice to Appear for removal proceedings, we deny his petition. His notice to appear said all it had to say under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1), that he was an alien not admitted or paroled, not a United States Citizen or national, so he was subject to removal. To the degree that Arroyo's other claims are exhausted, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1), and raised in his opening brief, see Eberle v. City of Anaheim, 901 F.2d 814, 817-18 (9th Cir.1990), they lack merit.
DISMISSED IN PART; DENIED IN PART.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.