ALEX CARRILLO-GARCIA, AKA Alex Garcia, AKA Alex La Paz, AKA Alex Giovanni Lopez v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALEX CARRILLO-GARCIA, AKA Alex
Garcia, AKA Alex La Paz, AKA Alex
Giovanni Lopez,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-73844
Agency No. A205-320-108
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Alex Carrillo-Garcia, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ ”) order of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed
FILED
AUG 04 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v.
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We dismiss in part and deny in
part the petition for review.
The BIA correctly determined that Carrillo-Garcia failed to challenge the
IJ’s conclusion that his conviction under California Penal Code § 273.5(a) renders
him ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C).
Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review Carrillo-Garcia’s unexhausted
contentions that his criminal history does not include an aggravated felony and that
he qualifies for the petty offense exception. See Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203,
1207-08 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (explaining that issues raised in the notice of
appeal but not argued in an appellant’s principal brief are deemed abandoned);
Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1070, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We lack jurisdiction to
review legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before
the BIA.”).
To the extent Carrillo-Garcia challenges the agency’s bond determination,
this challenge is not properly before us. See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e); 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.19(d); Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011)
(clarifying the proper procedure for challenging a Casas-Castrillon bond
determination).
13-73844 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Carrillo-Garcia has waived any challenge to the BIA’s determination that he
is not eligible for any other form of relief. See Tijani, 628 F.3d at 1080 (“[W]e
generally will not take up arguments not raised in an alien’s opening brief before
this court.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
13-73844 3

-- 3 of 3 --