FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 5 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE GREGORIO SANCHEZ LOBATO, No. 09-73512
Petitioner, Agency No. A077-465-051
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 2, 2011 **
Before: RYMER, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jose Gregorio Sanchez Lobato, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming
an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of
removal and his motion to terminate proceedings. We have jurisdiction under
*
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).
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Vasquez de Alcantar v.
Holder, No. 09-73512, 2011 WL 2163965, at *2 (9th Cir. Jun. 3, 2011), and we
deny the petition for review.
The IJ properly concluded that Sanchez Lobato was statutorily ineligible for
cancellation of removal because he could not establish seven years of continuous
residence in the United States after being “admitted in any status.” See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229b(a)(2); Vasquez de Alcantar, No. 09-73512, 2011 WL 2163965, at *5 (an
applicant for adjustment of status is not admitted until his application is approved).
Contrary to Sanchez Lobato’s contention, the IJ did not err in denying his
motion to terminate proceedings for cancellation and reissuance of the notice to
appear because the IJ lacked the authority to grant the motion. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1239.2(c).
Sanchez Lobato’s challenge to the BIA’s decision to affirm without opinion
is foreclosed by Padilla-Romero v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1011, 1015 (9th Cir. 2010)
(per curiam) (a petitioner’s contention that the BIA erred by affirming without
opinion “has no force” where the court can address the merits of the case by
reviewing the IJ’s decision).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 09-73512