Case ID: f-appx_707/html/0931-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Welmer OCHOA-DELEON, AKA Carlos Deleon-Ochoa, AKA Lalo Ochoa, AKA Lola Ochoa, AKA Otto Ochoa, AKA Welmer Dionel Ochoa, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 16-71693
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted December 18, 2017 
    
    Filed December 21, 2017
    Welmer Ochoa-Deleon, Pro Se
    OIL, Jennifer A. Bowen, Trial Attorney, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Welmer Ochoa-Deleon, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his request for a continuance and denying his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Ochoa-Deleon has waived any challenge to the agency’s denial of his request for a continuance and his application for cancellation of removal. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (issues not raised in an opening brief are waived).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Ochoa-Deleon’s unexhausted contentions regarding asylum and related relief. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court lacks jurisdiction to consider legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before the agency). Accordingly, we deny his related request for judicial notice. See Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365, 371 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating standard for review of out-of-record evidence).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Ochoa-Deleon’s request for prosecutorial discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.