NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEC 07 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
JORGE RODRIGUEZ-ALONSO, No. 07-70025
Petitioner, Agency No. A093-322-411
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.
Jorge Rodriguez-Alonso, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen.
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due
*
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
process violations in immigration proceedings. Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439
F.3d 614, 620 (9th Cir. 2006). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for
review.
To the extent Rodriguez-Alonso challenges the BIA’s June 29, 2006, order
dismissing his underlying appeal, we lack jurisdiction because this petition for
review is not timely as to that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th
Cir. 2003).
We also lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of Rodriguez-Alonso’s
motion to reopen, which introduced further evidence of hardship to his United
States citizen children. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 600 (9th Cir.
2006) (“Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) . . . bars jurisdiction where the question presented
is essentially the same discretionary issue originally decided.”). It follows that we
lack jurisdiction to review Rodriguez-Alonso’s contention that the BIA failed to
explain adequately its reasons for denying the motion to reopen. See id. at 603-04.
Rodriguez-Alonso’s contention that the BIA violated due process by
mischaracterizing the immigration judge’s weighing of the evidence is unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
JTK/Research 2 07-70025