Raul Lomeli-Robles 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 LOMELI-ROBLES,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72014
Agency No. A013-696-291
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 16, 2010**
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Raul Lomeli-Robles, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for relief under former § 212(c) of
FILED
MAR 24 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JTK/Research 07-72014 2
the Immigration and Nationality Act. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Mielewczyk v. Holder, 575 F.3d 992,
994 (9th Cir. 2009), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s discretionary denial of Lomeli-
Robles’ application for § 212(c) relief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii);
Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 923 (9th Cir. 2007).
Lomeli-Robles’ contention that the IJ applied an incorrect legal standard in
adjudicating his application for § 212(c) relief is not persuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --