Case Name: Jose Daniel GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-03
Citations: 667 F. App'x 946
Docket Number: No. 14-74039
Parties: Jose Daniel GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 946–946

Head Matter:
Jose Daniel GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-74039
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 26, 2016
FILED August 03, 2016
Jose Daniel Gomez, Pro Se
Brendan Paul Hogan, Esquire, Attorney, Timothy Hayes, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, 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
Jose Daniel Gomez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his applications for relief from removal. 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, Gomez does not raise, and therefore has waived, any challenge to the agency's determinations that he is removable, and that he failed to demonstrate eligibility for relief from removal. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (a petitioner waives an issue by failing to raise it in the opening brief).
To the extent Gomez contends he is eligible for prosecutorial discretion, we lack jurisdiction to consider his contention. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Gomez's unexhausted contention regarding his counsel in criminal proceedings. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010).
We grant the government's motion to strike new evidence (Docket Entry No. 33). See Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365, 371 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining standard for review of out-of-record evidence).
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.