Antonio Castaneda-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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ANTONIO CASTANEDA-RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-72233
Agency No. A095-310-057
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Antonio Castaneda-Rodriguez, 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 order of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed
by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Gil v. Holder, 651 F.3d
FILED
SEP 17 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-72233 2
1000, 1003 (9th Cir. 2011), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
The BIA properly declined to reinstate Castaneda-Rodriguez’s voluntary
departure period for failure to timely submit proof of having posted his voluntary
departure bond. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(c)(3)(ii). Although Castaneda-Rodriguez
has submitted new evidence with his petition for review, our review is limited to
the administrative record and we cannot consider evidence that was not before the
BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A). Castaneda-Rodriguez should have filed a
motion to reconsider before the BIA.
We lack jurisdiction to review Castaneda-Rodriguez’s contention that he
qualifies for cancellation of removal because he failed to raise that issue before the
BIA and thereby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --