Jose Maltez Padilla v. Loretta E. Lynch , 609 F. App'x 469 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 07 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE SANTOS MALTEZ PADILLA, No. 13-72942
AKA Jose Maltez, AKA Jose
Maltezpadilla, AKA Jose Anthony Agency No. A095-658-213
Maltezpadilla, AKA Jose Santos
Maltezpadilla,
MEMORANDUM*
Petitioner,
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.
Jose Santos Maltez Padilla, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions pro
se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
*
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).
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and
deny the petition for review.
Maltez Padilla attached several documents to his opening brief and his filing
of May 15, 2015, some of which were not in the administrative record. We do not
consider the extra-record documents because our review is limited to the record
underlying the agency’s decision. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir.
1996) (en banc). Further, to the extent Maltez Padilla is asking for prosecutorial
discretion in his filing of May 15, 2015, we lack jurisdiction over such a request.
See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order).
Maltez Padilla does not raise any challenge to the BIA’s dispositive finding
that he is ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal on the ground that his
2009 conviction is a per se particularly serious crime, nor does he raise any
challenges to the BIA’s rejection of CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94
F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in the
opening brief are deemed waived). Thus, we deny the petition as to his asylum,
withholding of removal, and CAT claims.
2 13-72942
Maltez Padilla’s challenges to his continued detention and the agency’s
denial of bond are not properly before us. See Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d
1157, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011) (noting entitlement to bond hearing for certain aliens
held in custody and setting forth procedure for challenging bond determinations).
Finally, Maltez Padilla’s motion for bond is denied; he may seek administrative
remedies. See id.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 13-72942