Rafael Barcenas v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

11-73588Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit21.03.2013

Gesamter Gesetzestext

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAFAEL BARCENAS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-73588
Agency No. A099-021-448
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 12, 2013**
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Rafael Barcenas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review
from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from
an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400
FILED
MAR 21 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-73588 2
F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
In his opening brief, Barcenas fails to address, and therefore has waived any
challenge to, the BIA’s determination that he is ineligible for adjustment of status,
cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding, and relief under the Convention
Against Torture. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.
1996) (issues that are not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief
are waived).
We lack jurisdiction to review Barcenas’ contention that the IJ abused his
discretion and violated due process by denying Barcenas’ request for a continuance
because he failed to raise that issue before the BIA and thereby failed to exhaust
his administrative remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.
2004) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the
agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --

Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort

Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.