Case Name: Diana Bernardina RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-07
Citations: 395 F. App'x 375
Docket Number: No. 08-74739
Parties: Diana Bernardina RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 395
Pages: 375–375

Head Matter:
Diana Bernardina RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-74739.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 23, 2010.
Filed Sept. 7, 2010.
Shan Potts, Law Offices of Larry W. Smith, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Terri Leon-Benner, Esquire, Trial, OIL, Shelley Goad, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, 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
Diana Bernardina Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying her application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review Rodriguez's collateral challenge to her expedited removal order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(A) & (e)(2) (judicial review of an expedited removal order is restricted to limited habeas review before the district court); see also Avendano-Ramirez v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 813, 818-19 (9th Cir.2004) (collateral attack on expedited removal orders "severely" limited).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.