Ramirez-Rodriguez v. Holder

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 26 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LUIS RAMIREZ-RODRIGUEZ, No. 07-70059 Petitioner, Agency No. A092-121-423 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 16, 2010 ** Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Luis Ramirez-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 (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to * 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). IH/Research 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Morales-Alegria v. Gonzales, 449 F.3d 1051, 1053 (9th Cir. 2006), and due process claims, Sanchez- Cruz v. INS, 255 F.3d 775, 779 (9th Cir. 2001). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Ramirez-Rodriguez’s contention that a conviction under Cal. Penal Code § 422 does not categorically constitute a crime of violence is foreclosed by Rosales-Rosales v. Ashcroft, 347 F.3d 714, 717 (9th Cir. 2003). Ramirez-Rodriguez’s contention that the IJ violated his due process rights by refusing to continue his immigration proceedings fails because he did not establish good cause for a continuance. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for a due process violation). We lack jurisdiction to consider Ramirez-Rodriguez’s remaining contentions because he failed to exhaust them before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. IH/Research 2 07-70059