Mondragon v. Holder ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           SEP 29 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    PABLINO CARDONA MONDRAGON,                        Nos. 06-73231
    06-75331
    Petitioner,
    Agency No. A091-462-203
    v.
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,            MEMORANDUM *
    Respondent.
    On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted September 13, 2010 **
    Before:        SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    In these consolidated petitions for review, Pablino Cardona Mondragon, a
    native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals’ order (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s
    removal order. We have jurisdiction under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We review de novo
    *
    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).
    questions of law and constitutional claims. Khan v. Holder, 
    584 F.3d 773
    , 776 (9th
    Cir. 2009). We deny the petitions for review.
    Mondragon does not challenge the agency’s determination that he is
    removable under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1227
    (a)(2)(A)(iii) based on his conviction for lewd or
    lascivious acts with a child under 14 years of age in violation of California Penal
    Code § 288(a).
    The agency determined that Mondragon is ineligible for relief under former
    section 212(c), 
    8 U.S.C. § 1182
    (c) (repealed 1996), because his ground of
    removability lacks a statutory counterpart in a ground of inadmissibility. See
    
    8 C.F.R. § 1212.3
    (f)(5). Mondragon’s legal and equal protection challenges to this
    determination are unavailing. See Abebe v. Mukasey, 
    554 F.3d 1203
    , 1206, 1208
    n.7 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc).
    Mondragon has waived any challenge to the BIA’s October 19, 2005, order
    denying his motion to reconsider.
    PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                      06-73231
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-73231

Filed Date: 9/29/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021