Santos Gonzalez Martinez v. Jefferson Sessions ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SANTOS GONZALEZ MARTINEZ, AKA No. 15-70881
Ananias Mateo Mateo,
Agency No. A088-717-703
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 15, 2017**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Santos Gonzalez Martinez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We dismiss the petition for
review.
*
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).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s order dismissing Gonzalez
Martinez’s appeal from an IJ’s removal order because he waived his right of
appeal, and thereby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Joo v. INS,
813 F.2d 211, 212 (9th Cir. 1987) (“A waiver of the right to appeal is a failure to
exhaust administrative remedies.”).
To the extent Gonzalez Martinez contends the waiver was invalid because
his former counsel failed to ask if he feared persecution or harm in Guatemala, we
lack jurisdiction to consider this unexhausted contention. See Zara v. Ashcroft, 383
F.3d 927, 930 (9th Cir. 2004) (“A petitioner cannot satisfy the exhaustion
requirement by making a general challenge to the IJ’s decision, but, rather, must
specify which issues form the basis of the appeal.”); Brown v. Holder, 763 F.3d
1141, 1146 (9th Cir. 2014) (requiring petitioner to exhaust challenge to waiver of
appeal).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Gonzalez Martinez’s request for
prosecutorial discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir.
2012) (order).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
2 15-70881