Court Opinion

ID: 4147635
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-02-22 21:01:15.278569+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:41:53.037891
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              FEB 22 2017

                                                                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

OMAR CRUZ RODRIGUEZ,                             No.   15-72487

              Petitioner,                        Agency No. A204-371-716

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
JEFF B. SESSIONS, Attorney General,

              Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                            Submitted February 14, 2017**

Before:      GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

      Omar Cruz Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
immigration judge’s order of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. §

§ 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

      We lack jurisdiction to consider Cruz Rodriguez’ collateral attack upon his

California controlled substance conviction. See Ramirez-Villalpando v. Holder,

645 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that petitioner could not collaterally

attack his state court conviction on a petition for review of a BIA decision).

      We lack jurisdiction to consider Cruz Rodriguez’ eligibility for Deferred

Action for Childhood Arrivals, see Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th

Cir. 2012) (order); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), and Cruz Rodriguez has not shown any

error in the BIA’s decision not to remand.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

                                          2                                      15-72487