Case Name: Emmanuel Aroc PLANAS, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-07-07
Citations: 285 F. App'x 363
Docket Number: No. 05-76459
Parties: Emmanuel Aroc PLANAS, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 285
Pages: 363–364

Head Matter:
Emmanuel Aroc PLANAS, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-76459.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 18, 2008.
Filed July 7, 2008.
Christopher J. Stender, Esq., Deniz S. Arik, Stender & Pope, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, District Counsel, Office of the District Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Cythia M. Parsons, Esq., USPX—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Emmanuel Aroc Planas, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("U") order denying his application for relief under former section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations, Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 921 (9th Cir.2007), and we deny the petition for review.
The government established by clear and convincing evidence that Planas' appeal waiver was considered and intelligent, as the record indicates the IJ explained the appeals process thoroughly and Planas affirmatively waived appeal and reaffirmed his waiver. Cf Biwot v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir.2005).
In light of our disposition, we need not reach Planas' remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.