Ubaldo Villalobos-Pastor 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
UBALDO VILLALOBOS-PASTOR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72521
Agency No. A078-440-373
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2010**
Before: O’Scannlain, Tallman, and Bea, Circuit Judges.
Ubaldo Villalobos-Pastor, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his second
motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and de novo questions of law,
FILED
OCT 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-72521 2
Banuelos-Ayon v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1080, 1082 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny in
part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen on
grounds that Villalobos-Pastor is statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal
based on his conviction for a crime of domestic violence. See
8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i); see also Banuelos-Ayon, 611 F.3d at 1083 (a
conviction under California Penal Code § 273.5(a) is categorically a crime of
violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16(a)). Villalobos-Pastor’s contention that he is
eligible for cancellation because his conviction is not a crime involving moral
turpitude is unavailing.
We lack jurisdiction to consider whether the BIA should have invoked its
sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153,
1159 (9th Cir.2002).
To the extent, Villalobos-Pastor challenges the BIA’s February 6, 2006, and
October 24, 2006 orders, we lack jurisdiction because this petition is not timely as
to those orders. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th
Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --