FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 07 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OMAR ADRIAN RODRIGUEZ-PEREZ, No. 04-70084
Petitioner, Agency No. A073-825-972
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009 **
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Omar Adrian Rodriguez-Perez, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying voluntary departure and a
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
JTK/Research
waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h). Our jurisdiction is governed
by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and constitutional
claims. Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir. 2003). We
dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review Rodriguez-Perez’s contention that the IJ erred
and violated due process by failing to inform him of the availability of pre-hearing
voluntary departure because Rodriguez-Perez failed to raise this contention before
the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
The agency did not err in requiring Rodriguez-Perez to establish the good
moral character required under 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(b)(1)(B). See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1240.26(b)(1)(i)(A)-(B).
Assuming without deciding that Rodriguez-Perez has standing to raise his
equal protection challenge to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h), we conclude that Rodriguez-
Perez’s claim is foreclosed on the merits by Taniguchi v. Schultz, 303 F.3d 950,
957-58 (9th Cir. 2002).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
JTK/Research 2 04-70084