Opinion
Nos. 05-76436, 06-74491.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed September 23, 2008.
Jose Maria Ochoa Galindo, Pomona, CA, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Paul Fiorino, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A95-294-755.
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
In these consolidated petitions, Jose Maria Ochoa Galindo, 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, No. 05-76436, and for review of the BIA order denying his motion to reopen, No. 06-74491. We review de novo questions of law, Vaaquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition in No. 05-76436 and dismiss the petition in No. 06-74491.
We reject Ochoa Galindo's contention that the BIA's streamlining procedures violate due process or his statutory right to an administrative appeal. See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 851 (9th Cir. 2003) (rejecting due process challenge); Jiang v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 649, 654 (9th Cir. 2005) (rejecting statutory challenge).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 993 n. 8 (9th Cir. 2008) (mandate pending).
No. 05-76436: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED;
No. 06-74491: PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.