Case Name: Yolanda RAMIREZ-VALDOVINO, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-10-02
Citations: 249 F. App'x 687
Docket Number: No. 05-75830
Parties: Yolanda RAMIREZ-VALDOVINO, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 249
Pages: 687–688

Head Matter:
Yolanda RAMIREZ-VALDOVINO, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-75830.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 24, 2007.
Filed Oct. 2, 2007.
David Neumeister, Bakersfield, CA, for Petitioner.
CAS-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Paul Fiorino, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Peter D. Keisler is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Acting Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Yolanda Ramirez-Valdovino, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order adopting and affirming an immigration judge's decision denying her request for voluntary departure on the ground that she testified falsely to obtain an immigration benefit. We dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction because it does not raise a question of law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f) (no court shall have jurisdiction over an appeal from the denial of voluntary departure); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 654 (9th Cir.2007) (notwithstanding any other statutory jurisdictional bar, the court retains jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) to review questions of law, including the application of law to undisputed facts).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.