Jesus Sanchez Diaz, Petitioner, v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Respondent, 145 F.3d 1340 (9th Cir. 1998)

 Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 145 F.3d 1340 (9th Cir. 1998) Submitted May 14, 1998**.Decided May 20, 1998

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Before SCHROEDER, TROTT, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM* 

Jesus Sanchez-Diaz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision affirming the denial of his application for waiver of deportation under § 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Because the BIA's final order of deportation was entered on March 26, 1997, the transitional rules of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 apply. See Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir. 1997).

Section 309(c) (4) (G) of the IIRIRA provides that "there shall be no appeal permitted in the case of an alien [such as Diaz] who is ... deportable by reason of having committed a criminal offense covered in ... section 241(a) (2) (A) (iii), (B), (C), or (D) or the Immigration and Nationality Act...." IIRIRA § 309(c) (4) (G). Diaz was deemed deportable under § 241(a) (2) (A) (iii) of the INA by reason of his having committed an aggravated felony and under § 241(a) (2) (B) by reason of his having committed a controlled substance offense. We therefore lack jurisdiction to hear Diaz's claim.1  IIRIRA § 309(c) (4) (G); see Duldulao v. INS, 90 F.3d 396, 399 (9th Cir. 1996).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

 **

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4

 *

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

 1

We need not decide whether § 309(c) (4) (G) would preclude Diaz from asserting his claim in a collateral habeas corpus proceeding in federal district court. See Duldulao, 90 F.3d 396, 400 n. 4 (9th Cir. 1996)

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.