Ricardo Ramirez-Gutierrez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
RICARDO RAMIREZ-GUTIERREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72291
Agency No. A078-467-244
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 25, 2011**
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Ricardo Ramirez-Gutierrez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for a waiver under
Section 212(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Our jurisdiction is
FILED
NOV 01 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-72291 2
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v.
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791–92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in
part the petition for review.
Ramirez-Gutierrez’s contention that he began lawfully residing continually
in the United States when he took steps to establish substantial ties in the United
States is unpersuasive. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h) (an alien previously admitted for
lawful permanent residence is ineligible for a 212(h) waiver if the alien has not
“lawfully resided continuously in the United States for a period of not less than 7
years immediately preceding the date of initiation of proceedings to remove the
alien from the United States”).
We lack jurisdiction over Ramirez-Gutierrez’s contention that he began
accruing lawful continuous residence when he filed his I-130 petition because he
did not raise the claim before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678
(9th Cir. 2004).
Ramirez-Gutierrez’s equal protection argument is unavailing. Taniguchi v.
Schultz, 303 F.3d 950, 957 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[A] statute that limits the relief
available to a certain class of aliens will be ‘valid unless wholly irrational.’”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --