Opinion
No. 06-74135.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed July 11, 2008.
Naveed D. Shomloo, Shomloo Shomloo, Portland, OR, Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Portland, OR, Karen Y. Stewart, Esq., DOJ-U.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. A35-049-411.
Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Jorge Arcadio Coronado-Ayala petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order summarily affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") order denying his application for relief under former section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law in immigration proceedings, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir. 2003), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review Coronado-Ayala's challenge to the IJ's discretionary denial of a § 212(c) waiver. See Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 923 (9th Cir. 2007) ("Discretionary decisions, including whether or not to grant § 212(c) relief, are not reviewable. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).").
We reject Coronado-Ayala's contention that the IJ improperly relied upon the police reports in the record in denying relief. See Paredes-Urrestarazu v. INS, 36 F.3d 801, 810 (9th Cir. 1994) (BIA may consider an alien's past conduct that did not result in a conviction when making a § 212(c) determination).
Coronado-Ayala's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.