Case Name: Oscar Rene QUINTANILLA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-06
Citations: 298 F. App'x 697
Docket Number: No. 08-70277
Parties: Oscar Rene QUINTANILLA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 298
Pages: 697–697

Head Matter:
Oscar Rene QUINTANILLA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-70277.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 28, 2008.
Filed Nov. 6, 2008.
Oscar Rene Quintanilla, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Oscar Quintanilla, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' dismissal of his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the petition for review.
Quintanilla contends that the Board erred in dismissing his appeal as one day late under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38(b) and (c) and 1240.15 because he sent his pro se notice of appeal by certified mail on July 3, 2007, two days before it was due.
Quintanilla has not established rare circumstances justifying an exception to the deadline for appeal. See Oh v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 611, 613 (9th Cir.2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.