Luis Blas-Macha v. ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS BLAS-MACHA,
Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 15-73460
Agency No. A078-331-221
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 17, 2021**
Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Luis Blas-Macha, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
FEB 22 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-73460
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of
law. Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Blas-Macha does not raise any challenge to the
agency’s bases for denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
CAT. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues
not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, we
deny the petition for review as to Blas-Macha’s asylum, withholding of removal,
and CAT claims.
We lack jurisdiction to consider any challenge to the BIA’s May 13, 2016,
order denying Blas-Macha’s motion to reopen removal proceedings based on
ineffective assistance of counsel because Blas-Macha did not file a petition for
review as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Martinez-Serrano, 94 F.3d at
1258 (time limit for filing a petition for review is “mandatory and jurisdictional”).
Blas-Macha’s motion to supplement the record on appeal (Docket Entry No.
11) is denied. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc)
(the court’s review is limited to the administrative record).
As to Blas-Macha’s July 19, 2018, Rule 28(j) letter (Docket Entry No. 25),
we deny the request to terminate because Blas-Macha’s contention that the IJ
lacked jurisdiction over his proceedings is foreclosed by

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-73460
Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 895 (9th Cir. 2020) (“the lack of time, date,
and place in the NTA sent to [petitioner] did not deprive the immigration court of
jurisdiction over her case”).
As to Blas-Macha’s August 13, 2019, Rule 28(j) letter (Docket Entry No.
30), we decline to terminate or remand for Blas-Macha to apply for cancellation of
removal. See Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1162 (9th Cir. 2019).
As stated in the court’s January 28, 2016 order, the temporary stay of
removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --