Nelson M. Morales v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NELSON M. MORALES,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-71866
Agency No. A075-615-036
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 15, 2019**
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Nelson M. Morales, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for
withholding of removal and deferral of removal under the Convention Against
* 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
OCT 21 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-71866
Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in
part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Morales fails to challenge the agency’s determination
that, because he was convicted of a particularly serious crime, he is ineligible for
withholding of removal. See Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5
(9th Cir. 2013) (failure to contest issue in opening brief resulted in waiver).
Morales also fails to challenge the agency’s denial of CAT relief. See id. Thus,
Morales’s withholding of removal and CAT claims fail.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Morales’s contentions regarding IJ bias and
the denial of the right to present evidence. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674,
677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust issues or claims in administrative
proceedings below). We also lack jurisdiction to consider Morales’s contentions
regarding ineffective assistance of counsel that he did not present to the agency.
See id.
To the extent Morales challenges the BIA’s March 20, 2019 order denying
his motion to reopen, we lack jurisdiction to consider the challenge because
Morales failed to file a timely petition for review as to that order. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(1) (“The petition for review must be filed not later than 30 days after the

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-71866
date of the final order of removal.”); see also Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188
(9th Cir. 2003) (30-day deadline is “mandatory and jurisdictional”).
We grant respondent’s motion for leave to file out of time an opposition to
petitioner’s motion to transmit evidence.
We deny Morales’s opposed motion to transmit evidence and we do not
consider the materials attached to Morales’s opening brief that are not part of the
administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en
banc) (this court’s review is limited to the administrative record underlying the
BIA’s decision).
Morales’s motion for a stay of removal, filed August 22, 2019, is denied as
moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part, DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --