Ramon Mondragon-Rodriguez, a.k.a. Ramon Mondragon Rodriguez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
RAMON MONDRAGON-RODRIGUEZ,
a.k.a. Ramon Mondragon Rodriguez,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73854
Agency No. A091-745-184
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.
Ramon Mondragon-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163,
FILED
NOV 02 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-73854 2
1166 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
Because Mondragon-Rodriguez failed to demonstrate a gross miscarriage of
justice at his prior proceedings, he may not collaterally attack his 2000 deportation
order. See Ramirez-Juarez v. INS, 633 F.2d 174, 175-76 (9th Cir. 1980) (per
curiam) (“This court has consistently held that an alien cannot collaterally attack an
earlier exclusion or deportation at a subsequent deportation hearing, in the absence
of a gross miscarriage of justice at the prior proceedings.”); Alvarenga-Villalobos
v. Ashcroft, 271 F.3d 1169, 1172-73 (9th Cir. 2001) (deportation order under a
given rule of law may withstand subsequent judicial change in that rule).
The agency did not err in determining Mondragon-Rodriguez was ineligible
for cancellation of removal where his 2000 deportation order terminated his status
as a lawful permanent resident. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(20), 1229b(a)(1).
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of Mondragon-
Rodriguez’s request for voluntary departure. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f);
Alvarez-Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245, 1255 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --