Court Opinion

ID: 9374664
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-23 18:01:04.214184+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:52.170067
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                         FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 23 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AGUILEO PEREZ-SILVA, AKA Aquileo                No.    20-71413
Perez Silva,
                                                Agency No. A073-854-506
                Petitioner,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                          Submitted February 14, 2023**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

      Aguileo Perez-Silva, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for

cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

      We lack jurisdiction to consider Perez-Silva’s contention that the agency

erred in its October 31, 2017, denial of cancellation of removal, where this petition

for review is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (“The petition

for review must be filed not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of

removal.”); Singh v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2016) (a BIA order

denying relief from removal, but remanding for voluntary departure proceedings, is

a final order of removal).

      In his opening brief, Perez-Silva does not raise, and therefore forfeits, any

challenge to the BIA’s April 21, 2020, determination that he waived the

opportunity to request further consideration of cancellation of removal before the

IJ. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013).

      To the extent Perez-Silva contends the IJ violated his right to due process

and that he is eligible for asylum, we lack jurisdiction to review these claims

because he did not exhaust them before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358

F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not

presented to the agency).

      The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

                                           2                                      20-71413