Pacheco-Martinez v. Mukasey, 309 F. App'x 208 (9th Cir. 2009). · Go Syfert
Search
Pacheco-Martinez v. Mukasey, 309 F. App'x 208 (9th Cir. 2009). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ricardo PACHECO-MARTINEZ
v.
Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General
No. 07-74900.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jan 20, 2009.
309 F. App'x 208
Ricardo Pacheco-Martinez, Bakersfield, CA, pro se., OIL, Stacy Stiffel Paddack, John D. Williams, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, 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.
Published

MEMORANDUM **

Ricardo Pacheco-Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying, as untimely filed, his motion to reopen the underlying denial of his application for cancellation of removal based on his failure to establish the requisite hardship to a qualifying relative.

Petitioner has waived any challenge to the BIA’s order denying his motion to reopen by failing to raise any arguments related to the BIA’s dispositive determination that the motion to reopen was untimely. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996). This court lacks jurisdiction to review petitioner’s contention that the BIA should have reopened proceedings sua sponte. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

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