Case Name: Francisco Julian GALINDO HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-10
Citations: 114 F. App'x 870
Docket Number: No. 03-73932; Agency No. A75-500-792
Parties: Francisco Julian GALINDO HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 114
Pages: 870–870

Head Matter:
Francisco Julian GALINDO HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-73932.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.
Decided Dec. 10, 2004.
Francisco Julian Galindo Hernandez, Fontana, CA, pro se.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div ./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Francisco Julian Galindo Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") denial of his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process challenges, Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft, 291 F.3d 594, 599 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA properly dismissed Hernandez's appeal as untimely. Although Hernandez blames his former counsel for failing to notify him of the IJ's decision, Hernandez does not explain why he waited four years to file his appeal to the BIA. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.