Case Name: Marcos CARMONA-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-11
Citations: 362 F. App'x 614
Docket Number: No. 06-73786
Parties: Marcos CARMONA-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 362
Pages: 614–615

Head Matter:
Marcos CARMONA-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-73786.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 2009 .
Filed Jan. 11, 2010.
Marcos Carmona-Lopez, North Las Vegas, NV, pro se.
NVL-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Las Vegas, NV, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Esq., Jonathan Robbins, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, 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
Marcos Carmona-Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se from the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order summarily affirming an immigration judge's order removing Carmona-Lopez to Mexico. To the extent we have jurisdiction it is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations. Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's March 1997 order because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).
Carmona-Lopez's contention that the BIA violated his due process rights by issuing a streamlined decision is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 848 (9th Cir.2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.