Opinion
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
Guadalupe Perez-Reynada, San Diego, CA, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, San Francisco, CA, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A96-060-540.
Before: B. FLETCHER, HAWKINS and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
This is a petition for review of an order denying petitioner's application for cancellation of removal. A review of the record shows that petitioner did not have a qualifying relative for the purpose of obtaining cancellation of removal at the time of her immigration proceedings. Although petitioner now has a qualifying relative, we decline to consider the new evidence of the birth of petitioner's United States citizen son because the proper procedure for presenting new information after deportation proceedings are finalized is to file a motion to reopen with the Board of Immigration Appeals. See Ortiz v. INS, 179 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir.1999).
Accordingly, we conclude that this petition for review is appropriate for summary disposition. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard for summary disposition); Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (9th Cir.2002) (concluding that petitioner who failed to show evidence of qualifying relative was ineligible for cancellation of removal)
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.