Case ID: f-appx_452/html/0787-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Stjepan John STANKIC, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-70970.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 27, 2011.
    
    Filed Oct. 7, 2011.
    Stjepan John Stankic, pro se.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, David V. Bernal, Yedidya Cohen, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Stjepan John Stankic, a native of the former Yugoslavia and a citizen of Croatia and Australia, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92, (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.

Stankic may not collaterally challenge his state conviction for felony sexual assault in a petition for review of a BIA decision. See Resendiz v. Kovensky, 416 F.3d 952, 960-61 (9th Cir.2005).

In his opening brief, Stankic fails to address, and therefore has waived any challenge to, the agency’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under 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).

We grant Stankic’s motion to accept his late reply brief.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.