Case Name: Miguel RODRIGUEZ-MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-11-19
Citations: 498 F. App'x 713
Docket Number: No. 11-73401
Parties: Miguel RODRIGUEZ-MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 498
Pages: 713–714

Head Matter:
Miguel RODRIGUEZ-MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-73401.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 13, 2012.
Filed Nov. 19, 2012.
Marina Alexandrovich, Esquire, Law Offices of Marina Alexandrovich, Tempe, AZ, for Petitioner.
Elizabeth Do Kurlan, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, 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
Miguel Rodriguez-Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge's denial of his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part, and dismiss in part, the petition for review.
Rodriguez-Martinez contends that he has a qualifying relative for purposes of cancellation of removal because he is the "de facto" parent of his United States citizen grandchildren. As Rodriguez-Martinez acknowledges, however, this court has rejected his claim, see Moreno-Morante v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 1172, 1176-78 (9th Cir.2007), and we are not at liberty to overturn the decision of a prior panel, see United States v. Easterday, 564 F.3d 1004, 1010-11 (9th Cir.2009) (a decision by a panel of this court is binding unless it is overruled by the court en bane or by the U.S. Supreme Court).
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's denial of petitioner's request for voluntary departure. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f); Kalilu v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 1215, 1217 n. 1 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED IN PART.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.