Cenobio Arroyo-Murillo v. Loretta E. Lynch

Ninth Circuit

Cenobio Arroyo-Murillo v. Loretta E. Lynch

642 F. App'x 763

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 21, 2016

Docket11-73240

StatusUnpublished

This text of 642 F. App'x 763 (Cenobio Arroyo-Murillo v. Loretta E. Lynch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cenobio Arroyo-Murillo v. Loretta E. Lynch, 642 F. App'x 763 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Cenobio Arroyo-Murillo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order denying his request for a continuance. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Before the IJ, Arroyo-Murillo conceded he was ineligible for any relief and sought only a one-year continuance in the hope of benefitting from comprehensive immigration reform legislation. The IJ denied the continuance, and Arroyo-Murillo does not challenge the BIA’s determinations that a continuance was not warranted and that Arroyo-Murillo’s immigration proceedings comported with due process. 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 review Arroyo-Murillo’s contentions regarding adjustment of status and a waiver of inadmissa-bility because Arroyo-Murillo did not file applications for those forms of relief before *764 the IJ or the BIA, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A) (“the court of appeals shall decide the petition only on the administrative record on which the order of removal is based”), and our review is limited to the final order of removal, see Aguilar-Turcios v. Holder, 740 F.3d 1294, 1299 (9th Cir.2014) (“we have jurisdiction to review final orders of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1)”); Galindo-Romero v. Holder, 640 F.3d 873, 877 (9th Cir.2011) (the term “order of removal” refers to the administrative order “‘concluding that the alien is [removable] or ordering [removal].’” (alterations in original) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(A))); cf. Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir.2014) (holding that the court had jurisdiction to review the prior BIA determinations in the case because the final deportation order was contingent upon them).

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Cenobio Arroyo-Murillo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order denying his request for a continuance. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Before the IJ, Arroyo-Murillo conceded he was ineligible for any relief and sought only a one-year continuance in the hope of benefitting from comprehensive immigration reform legislation. The IJ denied the continuance, and Arroyo-Murillo does not challenge the BIA’s determinations that a continuance was not warranted and that Arroyo-Murillo’s immigration proceedings comported with due process. 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 review Arroyo-Murillo’s contentions regarding adjustment of status and a waiver of inadmissa-bility because Arroyo-Murillo did not file applications for those forms of relief before *764 the IJ or the BIA, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A) (“the court of appeals shall decide the petition only on the administrative record on which the order of removal is based”), and our review is limited to the final order of removal, see Aguilar-Turcios v. Holder, 740 F.3d 1294, 1299 (9th Cir.2014) (“we have jurisdiction to review final orders of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1)”); Galindo-Romero v. Holder, 640 F.3d 873, 877 (9th Cir.2011) (the term “order of removal” refers to the administrative order “‘concluding that the alien is [removable] or ordering [removal].’” (alterations in original) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(A))); cf. Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir.2014) (holding that the court had jurisdiction to review the prior BIA determinations in the case because the final deportation order was contingent upon them).

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

642 F. App'x 763, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cenobio-arroyo-murillo-v-loretta-e-lynch-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack