Rafael Rodriguez Pedraza 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAFAEL RODRIGUEZ PEDRAZA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71439
Agency No. A095-406-729
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Rafael Rodriguez Pedraza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of
removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
FILED
JUN 01 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

07-71439 2
substantial evidence the BIA’s continuous physical presence determination, Lopez-
Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 847, 850-51 (9th Cir. 2004), and review de novo
constitutional claims, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We
deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Rodriguez Pedraza
did not meet his burden of establishing continuous physical presence, see 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229b(b)(1)(A), where the testimony of his three witnesses was materially
inconsistent regarding Rodriguez Pedraza’s place and duration of residence after
entry, cf. Lopez-Alvarado, 381 F.3d at 851-52.
We do not consider Rodriguez Pedraza’s hardship contention because his
failure to establish continuous physical presence is dispositive. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229b(b)(1)(A).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s July 18, 2007, order denying
Rodriguez Pedraza’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).
Rodriguez Pedraza’s due process claim is foreclosed by Falcon-Carriche v.
Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2003).
We lack jurisdiction to review Rodriguez Pedraza’s contention that the
agency acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative

-- 2 of 3 --

07-71439 3
Procedure Act in issuing its streamlining regulations. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 703; 28
U.S.C. § 1331.
Rodriguez Pedraza’s remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --