Case ID: f-appx_501/html/0710-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Adalberto MEDRANORIOS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-72183.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.
    
    Filed Dec. 28, 2012.
    Adalberto Medrano-Rios, Las Vegas, NV, pro se.
    Rachel Louise Browning, Trial, Kathryn L. Moore, Esquire, Trial, 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: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Adalberto Medrano-Rios, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. 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, Medrano-Rios fails to raise, and therefore waives, any challenge to the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen on the grounds that his notice argument was adjudicated in a prior BIA decision, that his motion to apply for cancellation of removal was untimely, and that cancellation of removal was not available to aliens in deportation proceedings. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n. 3 (9th Cir.2011) (a petitioner waives an issue by failing to raise it in the opening brief).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Medra-no-Rios’ contention that his attorney committed ineffective assistance of counsel, because Medrano-Rios failed to exhaust this claim before the BIA. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir.2010) (“We lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before the BIA.”).

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