Case ID: f-appx_400/html/0280-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Franklin Agustin GARCIA-AUCCA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-71328.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 29, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 22, 2010.
    Law Office of Michael L. Jacob, Bain-bridge Island, WA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, Melissa Nei-man-Kelting, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   ORDER

The memorandum disposition filed on July 7, 2010, is withdrawn. A replacement memorandum disposition will be filed concurrently with this order.

MEMORANDUM

Franklin Agustín Garcia-Aucca, native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. See Bromfield v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir.2008) (holding that the jurisdiction stripping provision found at 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) applies only to removal orders, not to applications for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in declining to accept Garcia-Aucca’s untimely brief. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1012-13 (9th Cir.2010) (concluding the applicable regulations indicate the BIA “could have considered” the brief, but it was under no obligation to do so, and the BIA did not act arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to the law in denying it) (emphasis in original).

Garcia-Aucca does not challenge the BIA and IJ’s denial of his asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims, and has therefore waived these issues. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (“Issues raised in a brief that are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”).

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