Salvador Diaz-Hilario v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 474 F. App'x 706 ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SALVADOR DIAZ-HILARIO, No. 11-72383
Petitioner, Agency No. A092-234-068
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 17, 2012 **
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Salvador Diaz-Hilario, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s removal order. We dismiss the petition for review.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Diaz-Hilario does not challenge the agency’s finding that he is removable
for having committed a controlled substance offense. Accordingly, we lack
jurisdiction to review Diaz-Hilario’s order of removal. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(C); Bermudez v. Holder, 586 F.3d 1167, 1169 (9th Cir. 2009) (per
curiam).
We lack jurisdiction to grant Diaz-Hilario bond or order his release. See 8
U.S.C. § 1226(c)(2) (the Attorney General may authorize release after certain
procedures are followed).
We also lack jurisdiction to consider Diaz-Hilario’s unexhausted claim that
he was not informed of the immigration consequences of his no-contest plea in
California criminal court. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.
2004).
Diaz-Hilario’s May 17, 2012, motion for a bond hearing is dismissed for
failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Leonardo v. Crawford, 646
F.3d 1157, 1159 (9th Cir. 2011) (“If [petitioner] is dissatisfied with the BIA’s
decision, he may then file a habeas petition in the district court, challenging his
continued detention. The district court’s decision on the habeas petition may be
appealed to this court.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
2 11-72383