Case Name: Kamal MATIAN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-28
Citations: 262 F. App'x 753
Docket Number: No. 05-77276
Parties: Kamal MATIAN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 262
Pages: 753–754

Head Matter:
Kamal MATIAN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-77276.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 20, 2007.
Filed Dec. 28, 2007.
Lea Greenberger, Attorney at Law, Encino, CA, for Petitioner.
District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, William C. Minick, Esq., Angela N. Liang, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Kamal Matian, a native and citizen of Iran, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's deportation order, which denied all relief except protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, Femandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 1159, 1163 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny the petition for review.
Matian's sole contention, that he is eligible for relief under former § 212(c), is foreclosed by Armendariz-Montoya v. Sonchik, 291 F.3d 1116, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that aliens who "pleaded not guilty and elected a jury trial . [are] barred from seeking § 212(c) relief'). See also Saravia-Paguada v. Gonzales, 488 F.3d 1122, 1131-34 (9th Cir.2007).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.