Ccaihuari-Hoyos v. Holder , 386 F. App'x 713 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 09 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FELIX CCAIHUARI-HOYOS, No. 07-74383
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-455-619
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010 **
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Felix Ccaihuari-Hoyos, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review of
the Board of Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
We review de novo legal questions and due process challenges. Vasquez-Zavala v.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part
the petition for review.
Ccaihuari-Hoyos’s contention that the government should be estopped from
placing him in removal proceedings rather than deportation proceedings is not
persuasive. Ccaihuari-Hoyos has not shown that the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (“INS”) engaged in affirmative misconduct when it waited
six years between issuing him an Order to Show Cause and lodging a Notice To
Appear with the immigration court. See Cortez-Felipe v. INS, 245 F.3d 1054, 1057
(9th Cir. 2001) (holding that estoppel may be warranted against the government on
account of affirmative misconduct, but not negligence).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Ccaihuari-Hoyos’s contention regarding the
IJ’s duty to hold an evidentiary hearing because he did not raise that issue before
the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 07-74383