Miguel Orozco Infante v. Loretta E. Lynch , 637 F. App'x 464 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 02 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MIGUEL OROZCO INFANTE, No. 14-70716
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-157-530
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Miguel Orozco Infante, 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”) order of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
*
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).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Orozco Infante’s unexhausted contentions
that the IJ violated his constitutional, statutory, and regulatory rights to counsel by
denying his request for an additional continuance, or that he qualifies for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. See
Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (we lack jurisdiction to
review legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before
the BIA).
We also lack jurisdiction to consider any claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel, because Orozco Infante did not raise it with the BIA in a motion to
reopen. See Liu v. Waters, 55 F.3d 421, 424-25 (9th Cir. 1995) (requiring
exhaustion of ineffective assistance of counsel claim through a motion to reopen
before the BIA).
Finally, we lack jurisdiction over claims regarding prosecutorial discretion,
see Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642 (9th Cir. 2012), and do not consider
evidence outside the administrative record, see Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th
Cir. 1996) (en banc) (the court’s review is limited to the administrative record).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
2 14-70716