Miguel Rodriguez-Martinez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ-MARTINEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-73401
Agency No. A095-767-855
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 13, 2012 **
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Miguel Rodriguez-Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his
appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of
FILED
NOV 19 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-73401 2
removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part, and
dismiss in part, the petition for review.
Rodriguez-Martinez contends that he has a qualifying relative for purposes
of cancellation of removal because he is the “de facto” parent of his United States
citizen grandchildren. As Rodriguez-Martinez acknowledges, however, this court
has rejected his claim, see Moreno-Morante v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 1172, 1176-78
(9th Cir. 2007), and we are not at liberty to overturn the decision of a prior panel,
see United States v. Easterday, 564 F.3d 1004, 1010-11 (9th Cir. 2009) (a decision
by a panel of this court is binding unless it is overruled by the court en banc or by
the U.S. Supreme Court).
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of petitioner’s
request for voluntary departure. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f); Kalilu v. Mukasey, 548
F.3d 1215, 1217 n.1 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED IN PART.

-- 2 of 2 --