Case Name: Agustin Aguilera GOMEZ, 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 68
Docket Number: No. 06-74132
Parties: Agustin Aguilera GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 262
Pages: 68–68

Head Matter:
Agustin Aguilera GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-74132.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 20, 2007.
Filed Dec. 28, 2007.
Murray D. Hilts, Esq., Law Offices of Murray Hilts, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
CAS-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, John R. Cunningham, Esq., Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Esq.,
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
Agustín Aguilera Gomez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings and remand. We dismiss the petition for review.
We do not consider Gomez's contentions regarding extreme hardship because he did not challenge the agency's good moral character finding in his motion to reopen and that determination is dispositive.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's underlying order dismissing Gomez's appeal from the immigration judge's decision denying suspension of deportation because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.