Gabriel Ponce-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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
GABRIEL PONCE-RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70059
Agency No. A091-115-690
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Gabriel Ponce-Rodriguez, 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 removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review de novo questions of law and constitutional claims. Avila-
FILED
OCT 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-70059 2
Sanchez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 1037, 1040 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny the petition
for review.
Because Ponce-Rodriguez’s June 18, 1996, deportation order was lawful
when he was deported and the record reveals that his waiver of appeal of that order
was “considered and intelligent,” the BIA did not err in concluding that he failed to
demonstrate a “gross miscarriage of justice at the prior proceeding” and he
therefore may not, at this point, collaterally attack his 1996 deportation order.
Ramirez-Juarez v. INS, 633 F.2d 174, 175-76 (9th Cir. 1980) (per curiam); see also
Alvarenga-Villalobos v. Ashcroft, 271 F.3d 1169, 1172-73 (9th Cir. 2001); Biwot v.
Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 2005) (waiver of right to appeal must be
“considered and intelligent”).
We reject Ponce-Rodriguez’s constitutional challenge to 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.44(k)(2). See Avila-Sanchez, 509 F.3d at 1040-41.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --