Mondragon-Rodriguez v. Holder

402 F. App'x 306

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: November 2, 2010
• Docket: 07-73854
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Ramon Mondragon-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 removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cere-zo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Because Mondragon-Rodriguez failed to demonstrate a gross miscarriage of justice at his prior proceedings, he may not collaterally attack his 2000 deportation order. See Ramirez-Juarez v. INS, 633 F.2d 174, 175-76 (9th Cir.1980) (per curiam) (“This court has consistently held that an alien cannot collaterally attack an earlier exclusion or deportation at a subsequent deportation hearing, in the absence of a gross miscarriage of justice at the prior proceedings.”); Alvarenga-Villalobos v. Ashcroft, 271 F.3d 1169, 1172-73 (9th Cir.2001) (deportation order under a given rule of law may withstand subsequent judicial change in that rule).

The agency did not err in determining Mondragon-Rodriguez was ineligible for cancellation of removal where his 2000 deportation order terminated his status as a lawful permanent resident. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(20), 1229b(a)(l).

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of Mondragon-Rodriguez’s request for voluntary departure. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f); Alvarez-Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245,1255 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.