Ramirez-Rodriguez v. Holder

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS RAMIREZ-RODRIGUEZ, No. 07-70059
Petitioner, Agency No. A092-121-423
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Luis Ramirez-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
*
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).
IH/Research
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Morales-Alegria v.
Gonzales, 449 F.3d 1051, 1053 (9th Cir. 2006), and due process claims, Sanchez-
Cruz v. INS, 255 F.3d 775, 779 (9th Cir. 2001). We deny in part and dismiss in
part the petition for review.
Ramirez-Rodriguez’s contention that a conviction under Cal. Penal Code
§ 422 does not categorically constitute a crime of violence is foreclosed by
Rosales-Rosales v. Ashcroft, 347 F.3d 714, 717 (9th Cir. 2003).
Ramirez-Rodriguez’s contention that the IJ violated his due process rights
by refusing to continue his immigration proceedings fails because he did not
establish good cause for a continuance. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Lata v. INS, 204
F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for a due process violation).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Ramirez-Rodriguez’s remaining contentions
because he failed to exhaust them before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358
F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
IH/Research 2 07-70059