Corneliu Curuta v. U.S. Water Conservation Lab, U.S. Department of Agriculture

19 F.3d 26 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Corneliu CURUTA, Petitioner, v. U.S. WATER CONSERVATION LAB, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Respondent. No. 92-70774. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Feb. 7, 1994. * Decided Feb. 16, 1994. Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Corneliu Curuta petitions pro se for review of the dismissal of his discrimination claim pursuant to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). Curuta contends the administrative law judge (ALJ) of the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer, Executive Office of Immigration Review, erred by dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1324b(i)(1), and we affirm. 3 We review de novo the IRCA agency's conclusions of law concerning the IRCA. Mester Mfg. Co. v. I.N.S., 879 F.2d 561, 565 (9th Cir.1989). We may overturn only IRCA agency findings of fact…