From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Alamillo-Quinones v. Mukasey

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Apr 28, 2008
275 F. App'x 699 (9th Cir. 2008)

Opinion

No. 06-72351.

Submitted April 22, 2008.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed April 28, 2008.

Manuel Armando Rios, Esq., Law Offices of Manuel A. Rios, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.

CAS-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Mark C. Walters, Esq., Jennifer L. Lightbody, Esq., DOJU.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A79-395-039.

Before: GRABER, FISHER and BERZON, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Fernando Alamillo-Quinones, 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 adjustment of status. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We have jurisdiction to decide, as a matter of law, whether an alien is statutorily eligible for adjustment of status 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The IJ properly determined that Alamillo-Quinones was not eligible for adjustment of status because he lacked an approved visa petition. See id. § 1255(i). Alamillo-Quinones' due process argument fails because he fails to show clear error. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for a due process violation).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Alamillo-Quinones' request for cancellation of removal because he did not make that application before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining that this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the agency).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.


Summaries of

Alamillo-Quinones v. Mukasey

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Apr 28, 2008
275 F. App'x 699 (9th Cir. 2008)
Case details for

Alamillo-Quinones v. Mukasey

Case Details

Full title:Fernando ALAMILLO-QUINONES, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Apr 28, 2008

Citations

275 F. App'x 699 (9th Cir. 2008)