Saulo Roberto Ramirez Mata 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).
IH/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SAULO ROBERTO RAMIREZ MATA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 05-71373
Agency No. A092-313-294
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Saulo Roberto Ramirez Mata, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen to apply for a section 212(c) waiver pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.44. Our
FILED
DEC 30 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

IH/Research 05-71373 2
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law,
Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
Ramirez Mata’s equal protection challenge fails because he was convicted
by plea agreement in February 1997 and is therefore not similarly situated to those
permanent resident aliens who retroactively became aggravated felons. See
Dillingham v. INS, 267 F.3d 996, 1007 (9th Cir. 2001) (to succeed on an equal
protection challenge, the petitioner must establish that his treatment differed from
that of similarly situated persons).
The BIA did not err in refusing to consider Ramirez Mata’s challenge to his
underlying removal order in the context of a special motion to reopen to apply for a
section 212(c) waiver. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.44(e) (“Proceedings shall be reopened
under this section solely for adjudicating the application for 212(c) relief.”).
To the extent Ramirez Mata raises contentions related to the agency’s
underlying decision ordering his removal, this court lack jurisdiction because this
petition is not timely as to that decision. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188
(9th Cir. 2003).
Ramirez Mata’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --