Romero-Aguilar v. Holder

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 29 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OSCAR ROMERO-AGUILAR, Nos. 05-72978
05-73201
Petitioner,
Agency No. A038-829-204
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM *
Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010 **
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Oscar Romero-Aguilar petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from
an immigration judge’s removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review de novo questions of law and constitutional claims. Khan 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).
Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review in No.
05-72978, and we dismiss the petition for review in No. 05-73201.
Romero-Aguilar does not challenge the agency’s determination that he is
removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) based on his 1989 conviction for
lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 years of age in violation of California
Penal Code § 288(a).
The agency determined that Romero-Aguilar is ineligible for relief under
former section 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996), because his ground of
removability lacks a statutory counterpart in a ground of inadmissibility. See 8
C.F.R. § 1212.3(f)(5). Romero-Aguilar’s legal and constitutional challenges to this
determination are unavailing. See Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1208 n.7 (9th
Cir. 2009) (en banc).
We do not reach the equal protection contentions Romero-Aguilar sets forth
for the first time in his reply brief. See Bazuaye v. INS, 79 F.3d 118, 120 (9th Cir.
1996) (per curiam) (issue raised for the first time in the reply brief is waived).
Romero-Aguilar’s motion for the court to set a supplemental briefing
schedule is denied.
2 05-72978
We lack jurisdiction to review Romero-Aguilar’s transferred habeas petition
because it was not pending in the district court on the date of enactment of the
REAL ID Act. See Singh v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1103, 1105 (9th Cir. 2008).
In No. 05-72978: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
In No. 05-73201: PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
3 05-72978