Oscar Madrigal v. Loretta E. Lynch , 620 F. App'x 616 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 20 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OSCAR MADRIGAL, No. 13-73925
Petitioner, Agency No. A091-816-725
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 14, 2015**
Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Oscar Madrigal, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation 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).
Madrigal has never challenged the IJ’s dispositive determination that his
conviction is a crime of domestic violence under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E) that
renders him statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229b(b)(1)(C), nor does he challenge the BIA’s determination that he waived
that issue by failing to raise it on appeal. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071,
1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court lacks jurisdiction to consider legal claims not
presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings); Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083,
1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (a petitioner waives an issue by failing to raise it in the
opening brief). In light of this dispositive determination, we do not reach
Madrigal’s contention that his conviction is not a crime involving moral turpitude.
See Mendez-Alcaraz v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 842, 844 (9th Cir. 2006) (declining to
reach nondispositive challenges to a BIA order).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
2 13-73925