Phi Quoc Tran v. Holder

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAR 25 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
PHI QUOC TRAN, No. 05-74461
Petitioner, Agency No. A025-383-979
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2011 **
Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Phi Quoc Tran, a native and citizen of Vietnam, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
denial of a motion to reopen and de novo questions of law and constitutional
*
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).
claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny
in part, and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Tran’s motion to reopen
on the ground that Tran is ineligible for relief under former section 212(c), 8
U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repeal effective April 1, 1997), because his ground of
deportability lacks a statutory counterpart in a ground of inadmissibility. See
8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.44(a), 1212.3(f)(5). Tran’s legal and constitutional challenges to
this determination are unavailing. See Aguilar-Ramos v. Holder, 594 F.3d 701,
706 (9th Cir. 2010).
We lack jurisdiction to consider the BIA’s October 5, 2005, order denying
Tran’s motion to reconsider because he failed to timely petition for review of that
decision. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 05-74461