Case Name: Everardo RODRIGUEZ-SOLIS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-02
Citations: 314 F. App'x 971
Docket Number: No. 05-74064
Parties: Everardo RODRIGUEZ-SOLIS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 314
Pages: 971–972

Head Matter:
Everardo RODRIGUEZ-SOLIS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-74064.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 18, 2009.
Filed March 2, 2009.
Karla L. Kraus, Esquire, Kraus Law Corporation, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
CAS-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Glen T. Jaeger, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Everardo Rodriguez-Solis, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing as untimely his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo whether the BIA had jurisdiction over an untimely appeal, Da Cruz v. INS, 4 F.3d 721, 722 (9th Cir.1993), and we deny the petition for review.
The record reflects that the IJ's decision was rendered on June 10, 2004. Rodriguez-Solis' notice of appeal was therefore due by July 12, 2004, but it was received by the BIA on July 14, 2004. The BIA properly dismissed the appeal as untimely, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38(b), as Rodriguez-Solis has not presented "rare circumstances" warranting an exception to the filing deadline, see, e.g., Oh v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 611, 613 (9th Cir.2005).
In light of our disposition, we need not reach Rodriguez-Solis' remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.