Opinion
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
Aliens appealed decision of Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming immigration judge's order of removal. The Court of Appeals held that it lacked jurisdiction over Attorney General's decision regarding commencement of removal proceedings.
Petition dismissed.
On Petition for Review of an Order of Immigration and Naturalization Service.
Before SNEED, FERNANDEZ, and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Carlos Mendoza-Bahena, his wife Maria Luisa Casteneda de Mendoza, and their children David, Carlos, and Jennifer Mendoza-Casteneda appeal the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision affirming the Immigration Judge's order of removal. We dismiss the petition.
(1) IIRIRA's permanent rules regarding jurisdiction govern this case. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252; Andreiu v. Reno, 223 F.3d 1111, 1113 (9th Cir.2000); see also Hose v. INS, 180 F.3d 992, 994-95 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc). On appeal the Mendozas argue that the INS improperly initiated
See Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (Sept. 30, 1996) as amended, Pub.L. No. 104-302, 110 Stat. 3656 (Oct. 11, 1996).
Page 723.
removal proceedings against them after IIRIRA's effective date of April 1, 1997, even though it could have initiated deportation proceedings against them prior to IIRIRA's effective date. We lack jurisdiction to hear this issue because, inter alia, we cannot review the Attorney General's decision regarding commencement of proceedings. 8 U.S. C.§ 1252(g); Richards-Diaz v. Fasano, 233 F.3d 1160, 1164 n. 5, 1165 (9th Cir.2000); see also Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 482-83, 119 S.Ct. 936, 943, 142 L.Ed.2d 940 (1999).
(2) Even if we otherwise had jurisdiction, we could not consider the Mendozas' arguments because they were not raised before the BIA. As such, the Mendozas failed to exhaust their administrative remedies and that deprives this court of jurisdiction. Rashtabadi v. INS, 23 F.3d 1562, 1567 (9th Cir.1994); Tejeda-Mata v. INS, 626 F.2d 721, 726 (9th Cir.1980).
Petition DISMISSED.