Case Name: Justino S. VALLE-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-03-11
Citations: 561 F. App'x 634
Docket Number: No. 10-71816
Parties: Justino S. VALLE-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 561
Pages: 634–635

Head Matter:
Justino S. VALLE-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-71816.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 6, 2014.
Filed March 11, 2014.
Alejandro Garcia, Law Offices of Alejandro Garcia, Commerce, CA, for Petitioner.
Matt Crapo, R. Alexander Goring, Esquire, Trial, Oil, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: FERNANDEZ, GRABER, and MURGUIA, 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
Petitioner Justino Valle-Garda petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) final order of removal on the ground that the BIA erred in concluding that Petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal. The BIA's final order was issued on March 18, 2008, when it denied Petitioner relief from deportation but remanded to the immigration judge for voluntary departure proceedings. See Pinto v. Holder, 648 F.3d 976, 982 (9th Cir.2011). Petitioner sought review in this court on June 9, 2010, more than two years later. Because 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) limits our review to petitions filed within thirty days of the date of the final order of removal, we lack jurisdiction to consider the petition. See Yepremyan v. Holder, 614 F.3d 1042, 1043 (9th Cir.2010) (per curiam) (noting that the time limit under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) is jurisdictional).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
. In light of our disposition, the Government's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is DISMISSED as moot.