Testo completo
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).
IH/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS RAMIREZ-RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70059
Agency No. A092-121-423
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Luis Ramirez-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 (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
FILED
FEB 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
IH/Research 07-70059 2
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Morales-Alegria v.
Gonzales, 449 F.3d 1051, 1053 (9th Cir. 2006), and due process claims, Sanchez-
Cruz v. INS, 255 F.3d 775, 779 (9th Cir. 2001). We deny in part and dismiss in
part the petition for review.
Ramirez-Rodriguez’s contention that a conviction under Cal. Penal Code
§ 422 does not categorically constitute a crime of violence is foreclosed by
Rosales-Rosales v. Ashcroft, 347 F.3d 714, 717 (9th Cir. 2003).
Ramirez-Rodriguez’s contention that the IJ violated his due process rights
by refusing to continue his immigration proceedings fails because he did not
establish good cause for a continuance. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Lata v. INS, 204
F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for a due process violation).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Ramirez-Rodriguez’s remaining contentions
because he failed to exhaust them before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358
F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
-- 2 of 2 --