Case Name: Eduardo GUERECA-LEYVA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-12
Citations: 386 F. App'x 747
Docket Number: No. 06-73191
Parties: Eduardo GUERECA-LEYVA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 386
Pages: 747–747

Head Matter:
Eduardo GUERECA-LEYVA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-73191.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 29, 2010.
Filed July 12, 2010.
Jan Joseph Bejar, Esquire, Law Offices of Jan Joseph Bejar, A Professional Law Corporation, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
District Director, Esquire, Office of The District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Le-Fevre, Office of The District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Andrew Jacob Oliveira, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, 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
Eduardo Guereca-Leyva, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his applications for cancellation of removal and adjustment of status. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and constitutional questions. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir.2004). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Guereca-Leyva's claim regarding continuous physical presence is foreclosed by Juarez-Ramos v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 509, 512 (9th Cir.2007).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Guere-ca-Leyva's contention that he did not make a false claim to U.S. citizenship, and that the basis of his May 30, 2000, expedited removal order was therefore incorrect, because it would require us to "nullify the continuing effects of that order" which 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(A) bars. See Avendano-Ramirez v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 813, 818-19 (9th Cir.2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.