Case Name: Victor Manuel Munoz PERALES, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-02-17
Citations: 637 F. App'x 349
Docket Number: No. 11-73217
Parties: Victor Manuel Munoz PERALES, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: KLEINFELD, McKEOWN, and IKUTA Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 637
Pages: 349–350

Head Matter:
Victor Manuel Munoz PERALES, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-73217.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 12, 2016.
Filed Feb, 17, 2016.
Claudia Jasmine Lopez, Esquire, Law Offices of Mendez & Lopez, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Oil, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Andrew B. Insenga, Trial, 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: KLEINFELD, McKEOWN, and IKUTA Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Victor Munoz Perales appeals the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's order of removal and holding that he did not derive United States citizenship from his father. The relevant decision for review, however, is the district court's grant of summary judg ment in favor of the government. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(5)(B); see Mondaca-Vega v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1075, 1076 & n. 1 (9th Cir.2013). We have jurisdiction' under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Because Munoz Perales did not challenge the district court's order in his briefs on appeal, he has waived any challenge to its determination that he is not a derivative citizen. Fed. R.App. P. 28(a); see Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir.1994).
Even if Munoz Perales had challenged the relevant decision, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the government. The district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the statements in Munoz Perales's testimony and the deposition of his brother indicating that their father resided in the United States between 1929 and 1950 were inadmissible as hearsay and for lack of personal knowledge. Fed.R.Evid. 602, 801(c), 802. Because no other admissible evidence supported Munoz Perales's claim, see Orr v. Bank of Am., NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764, 773 (9th Cir.2002), and the government adduced evidence that Munoz Pe-rales's father resided in Mexico during the relevant period, Munoz Perales failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact that his father resided in the United States for five years after turning 16 in 1929. See 8 U.S.C. § 601(g) (1940).
PETITION DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir, R, 36-3.