Jorge Mejia Rivera v. Loretta E. Lynch

Ninth Circuit

Jorge Mejia Rivera v. Loretta E. Lynch

637 F. App'x 1011

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 10, 2016

Docket12-70479

StatusUnpublished

This text of 637 F. App'x 1011 (Jorge Mejia Rivera 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

Jorge Mejia Rivera v. Loretta E. Lynch, 637 F. App'x 1011 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Jorge Alberto Mejia Rivera, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) decision adopting and affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

For the first time before this court Rivera asserts two arguments: one, that counsel below, who represented Rivera in both IJ and BIA proceedings, furnished ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to advise Rivera that he could have sought a suspension of deportation; and two, that the IJ erred when he retroactively applied standards of cancellation of removal, instead of suspension of deportation, to find petitioner ineligible for discretionary relief. First, we lack jurisdiction to review Rivera’s new claims because he did not raise either with the BIA or IJ, and accordingly, he has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Ontiveros-Lopez v. I.N.S., 213 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir.2000) (“We ... require an alien who argues ineffective assistance of counsel to exhaust his administrative remedies by first presenting the issue to the BIA.”).

Second, Rivera fails to challenge the BIA’s only finding — that Rivera was ineligible for CAT protection. Thus, he waives the only issue on appeal, and we deny in part the petition for review. See Martinez-Serrano v. I.N.S., 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (holding that issues not discussed in the opening brief are waived).

We stay the mandate of this court for 90 days from the date this disposition is filed, absent further order of this court, to allow Rivera an opportunity to file a motion to reopen with the BIA with respect to his new claims.

DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir, R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Jorge Alberto Mejia Rivera, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) decision adopting and affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

For the first time before this court Rivera asserts two arguments: one, that counsel below, who represented Rivera in both IJ and BIA proceedings, furnished ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to advise Rivera that he could have sought a suspension of deportation; and two, that the IJ erred when he retroactively applied standards of cancellation of removal, instead of suspension of deportation, to find petitioner ineligible for discretionary relief. First, we lack jurisdiction to review Rivera’s new claims because he did not raise either with the BIA or IJ, and accordingly, he has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Ontiveros-Lopez v. I.N.S., 213 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir.2000) (“We ... require an alien who argues ineffective assistance of counsel to exhaust his administrative remedies by first presenting the issue to the BIA.”).

Second, Rivera fails to challenge the BIA’s only finding — that Rivera was ineligible for CAT protection. Thus, he waives the only issue on appeal, and we deny in part the petition for review. See Martinez-Serrano v. I.N.S., 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (holding that issues not discussed in the opening brief are waived).

We stay the mandate of this court for 90 days from the date this disposition is filed, absent further order of this court, to allow Rivera an opportunity to file a motion to reopen with the BIA with respect to his new claims.

DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir, R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

637 F. App'x 1011, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jorge-mejia-rivera-v-loretta-e-lynch-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack