Joel Anguiano-Alvarado v. Loretta E. Lynch , 643 F. App'x 655 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOEL ANGUIANO-ALVARADO, No. 14-72986
Petitioner, Agency No. A077-067-149
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 15, 2016**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Joel Anguiano-Alvarado, 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. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the decision to deem an
*
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).
application abandoned. Taggar v. Holder, 736 F.3d 886, 889 (9th Cir. 2013). We
grant in part and dismiss in part the petition for review, and remand.
Under the circumstances presented by this case, the agency abused its
discretion in concluding that Anguiano-Alvarado abandoned his applications for
relief. See Cui v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1289, 1295-96 (9th Cir. 2008) (abuse of
discretion where the IJ’s decision was “arbitrary and unreasonable”).
To the extent Anguiano-Alvarado contends the IJ exhibited bias against him,
we lack jurisdiction to review that unexhausted contention. See Velasco-Cervantes
v. Holder, 593 F.3d 975, 978 n.3 (9th Cir. 2010), overruled on other grounds by
Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc) (citation to
legal authority, without corresponding argument, is “completely insufficient to put
the BIA on notice of the argument”).
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Anguiano-Alvarado’s
remaining contentions regarding due process and whether the BIA sufficiently
considered his arguments.
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED in part; DISMISSED in part;
REMANDED.
2 14-72986