From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Quintanilla v. Mukasey

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nov 6, 2008
298 F. App'x 697 (9th Cir. 2008)

Opinion

No. 08-70277.

Submitted October 28, 2008.

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

Filed November 6, 2008.

Oscar Rene Quintanilla, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A095-005-785.

Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

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


Oscar Quintanilla, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' dismissal of his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the petition for review.

Quintanilla contends that the Board erred in dismissing his appeal as one day late under 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.38(b) and (c) and 1240.15 because he sent his pro se notice of appeal by certified mail on July 3, 2007, two days before it was due.

Quintanilla has not established rare circumstances justifying an exception to the deadline for appeal. See Oh v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 611, 613 (9th Cir. 2005).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.


Summaries of

Quintanilla v. Mukasey

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nov 6, 2008
298 F. App'x 697 (9th Cir. 2008)
Case details for

Quintanilla v. Mukasey

Case Details

Full title:Oscar Rene QUINTANILLA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Nov 6, 2008

Citations

298 F. App'x 697 (9th Cir. 2008)