Martin Moreno-Ruiz v. William Barr ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 16 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTIN MORENO-RUIZ, No. 19-70824
Petitioner, Agency No. A028-486-148
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 11, 2019**
Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Martin Moreno-Ruiz, 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 deeming his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”)
*
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).
abandoned. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review an
agency decision to deem an application abandoned for abuse of discretion. Taggar
v. Holder, 736 F.3d 886, 889 (9th Cir. 2013). We deny in part and dismiss in part
the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in deeming Moreno-Ruiz’s
application abandoned where he failed to submit a timely, complete, and unaltered
application and failed to comply with the biometrics requirement. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.3(c)(3) (an application that does not include a response to each question is
incomplete); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31(c) (IJ may set time limits and deem an application
waived where time limit is not met); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47(c)-(d) (IJ may deem an
application waived for failure to timely comply with biometrics requirement).
The BIA did not err by not addressing Moreno-Ruiz’s request to assign his
case to a different IJ if remanded, where the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision. See
Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are
not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Moreno-Ruiz’s due process claim. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction
to review claims not presented to the agency). To the extent Moreno-Ruiz
2 19-70824
challenges the BIA’s March 2008 and February 2019 orders, we lack jurisdiction
to consider his arguments because Moreno-Ruiz failed to file timely petitions for
review as to those orders. 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.”);
see also Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003) (30-day deadline is
“mandatory and jurisdictional”).
All pending motions are denied as moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 19-70824