FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAMON BEDOLLA-ZAVALA, No. 08-70910
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-271-440
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010 **
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Ramon Bedolla-Zavala, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming his
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v.
*
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).
Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), and we dismiss in part and deny in
part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Bedolla-Zavala’s contentions related to his
eligibility for a section 212(h) waiver because he failed to raise them before the
BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner’s
failure to raise an issue to the BIA generally constitutes a failure to exhaust, and a
due process challenge must be exhausted when it involves a procedural error).
We also lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s discretionary denial of voluntary
departure. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229c(f), 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).
Bedolla-Zavala’s contention that the BIA’s streamlined order did not set
forth adequate reasons for denying relief is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v.
Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 851 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
2 08-70910