Aaron Ortiz v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            MAR 01 2012
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    AARON TREVIZO ORTIZ, a.k.a. Aron                  No. 10-72844
    Trevizo Ortiz,
    Agency No. A099-514-428
    Petitioner,
    v.                                              MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted February 21, 2012 **
    Before:        FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    Aaron Trevizo Ortiz, 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 removal order. We have jurisdiction under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We review de novo constitutional challenges to removal orders, Lopez-
    *
    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).
    Rodriguez v. Mukasey, 
    536 F.3d 1012
    , 1015 (9th Cir. 2008), and deny the petition
    for review.
    Even if we assume that Ortiz’s allegedly unlawful arrest and detention was
    an egregious violation of his constitutional rights, the agency did not err in
    concluding that there was substantial independent evidence in the record to
    establish that he nonetheless was subject to removal as charged. See Hoonsilapa v.
    INS, 
    575 F.2d 735
    , 738 (9th Cir. 1978), modified by 
    586 F.2d 755
     (9th Cir. 1978)
    (“[T]he mere fact that Fourth Amendment illegality directs attention to a particular
    suspect does not require exclusion of evidence subsequently unearthed from
    independent sources.”).
    In his opening brief, Ortiz fails to address, and therefore has waived any
    challenge to, the BIA’s determination that he is ineligible for cancellation of
    removal. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 
    94 F.3d 1256
    , 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996)
    (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                      10-72844
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-72844

Judges: Fernandez, McKeown, Bybee

Filed Date: 3/1/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024