Raul Porfirio Amador-Garcia; v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

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).
JTK/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAUL PORFIRIO AMADOR-GARCIA;
et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-75598
Agency Nos. A076-844-525
A076-844-526
A076-844-528
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Raul Porfirio Amador-Garcia, Rosa Maria Alvarez, and their son, natives
and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal
FILED
DEC 30 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JTK/Research 06-75598 2
order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
discretion the BIA’s decision to summarily dismiss an appeal, Singh v. Gonzales,
416 F.3d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
Contrary to the government’s contention, the BIA’s November 17, 2006,
order was the final order of removal because the BIA previously remanded for the
entry of a removal order, see generally Molina-Camacho v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 937
(9th Cir. 2004), overruled by Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2007)
(en banc), and petitioners filed a timely notice of appeal from the IJ’s decision on
remand, see 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(B). The petition for review is therefore timely.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (“The petition for review must be filed not later than 30
days after the date of the final order of removal.”).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in summarily dismissing petitioners’
appeal from an IJ’s order granting petitioners the voluntary departure relief they
requested. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(C).
We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ remaining contentions because
petitioners did not exhaust them before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358
F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --