Luis Ordaz-Leyva v. Loretta E. Lynch ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 25 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS MIGUEL ORDAZ-LEYVA, AKA No. 13-70943
Eduardo Urietta, AKA Pablo Ordaz, AKA
Eduardo Urietta-Leyva, AKA Antonio Agency No. A078-737-910
Peris, AKA Antonio Pen,
Petitioner, MEMORANDUM*
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 22, 2015**
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Luis Miguel Ordez-Leyva, 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”) decision denying his application for asylum,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d
1007, 1011-12 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Ordaz-Leyva established
changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application.
See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5); see also Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646,
657-58 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). Thus, we deny the petition as to Ordaz-
Leyva’s asylum claim. In light of this dispositive determination, we reject Ordaz-
Leyva’s request for a remand based on Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081(9th Cir. 2013).
Ordaz-Leyva does not challenge the BIA’s finding that he waived any
challenge to the IJ’s denial of his withholding of removal and CAT claims. See
Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996). We lack
jurisdiction to consider Ordaz-Leyva’s contentions regarding withholding of
removal and CAT, because he failed to raise these claims before the BIA. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
2 13-70943
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review Ordaz-Leyva’s challenge to the
agency’s discretionary denial of voluntary departure. See 8 U.S.C.
§§ 1252(a)(2)(B), 1229c(f); Gil v. Holder, 651 F.3d 1000, 1006 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 13-70943