Case ID: f-appx_608/html/0511-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Luis Miguel ORDAZ-LEYVA, aka Eduardo Urietta, aka Pablo Ordaz, aka Eduardo Urietta-Leyva, aka Antonio Peris, aka Antonio Pen, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-70943.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 22, 2015.
    
    Filed June 25, 2015.
    Nicholas W. Marchi, Carney & Marchi, PS, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
    Bernard Joseph, Oil, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, • DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    ' Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Luis Miguel Ordez-Leyya, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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 protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1011-12 (9th Cir.2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Ordaz-Leyva established changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5); see also Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 657-58 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam). Thus, we deny the petition as to Ordaz-Leyva’s asylum claim. In light of this dispositive determination, we reject Ordaz-Leyva’s request for a remand based on Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir.2013).

Ordaz-Leyva does not challenge the BIA’s finding that he waived any challenge to the IJ’s denial of his withholding of removal and CAT claims. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996). We lack jurisdiction to consider Ordaz-Leyva’s contentions regarding withholding of removal and CAT, because he failed to raise these claims before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004).

Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review Ordaz-Leyva’s challenge to the agency’s discretionary denial of voluntary departure. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(B), 1229c(f); Gil v. Holder, 651 F.3d 1000, 1006 (9th Cir.2011).

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