Case Name: Guillermo Amaya CRUZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States of America, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-07-11
Citations: 13 F. App'x 658
Docket Number: No. 99-71000; I & NS No. A71-782-083
Parties: Guillermo Amaya CRUZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States of America, Respondent.
Judges: Before WARDLAW, PAEZ, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 13
Pages: 658–658

Head Matter:
Guillermo Amaya CRUZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States of America, Respondent.
No. 99-71000.
I & NS No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 12, 2001.
Decided July 11, 2001.
Before WARDLAW, PAEZ, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
John Ashcroft is substituted for his predecessor, Janet Reno, as Attorney General of the United States. Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2). The Attorney General of the United States, rather than the Immigration and Naturalization Service, is the proper respondent in a petition for review of an order of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(3)(A).
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Guillermo Amaya Cruz was found removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), as an alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. He petitions for review of the BIA's decision that he is ineligible to apply for a waiver of inadmissibility under former INA § 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (1995). He also seeks review of the IJ's decision that he is ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal.
We lack jurisdiction to review Cruz's petition because he was convicted of an aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii); Calcano-Martinez v. INS, — U.S. -, 121 S.Ct. 2268, 2268-71 150 L.Ed.2d 392 (2001)("[While] the Court of Appeals . lacks jurisdiction to hear the petitions for direct review, . petitioners [may] proceed with their petitions for habeas corpus if they wish to obtain relief."). We therefore dismiss his petition for review, without prejudice. See id.; INS v. St. Cyr, — U.S.-, 121 S.Ct. 2271, 150 L.Ed.2d 347 (001).
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.