Mondragon, et al v. Holder, No. 06-73231 (9th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 29 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PABLINO CARDONA MONDRAGON, Nos.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 The agency determined that Mondragon is ineligible for relief under former section 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996), because his ground of removability lacks a statutory counterpart in a ground of inadmissibility.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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
