Marcos Carmona-Lopez 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).
1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARCOS CARMONA-LOPEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-73786
Agency No. A092-443-076
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges..
Marcos Carmona-Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se
from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an
immigration judge’s order removing Carmona-Lopez to Mexico. To the extent we
FILED
JAN 11 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

RA/Research 06-73786 2
have jurisdiction it is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of
constitutional violations. Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000). We
dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s March 1997 order because this
petition for review is not timely as to that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186,
1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
Carmona-Lopez’s contention that the BIA violated his due process rights by
issuing a streamlined decision is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350
F.3d 845, 848 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --