Rene Galdamez Sorto v. Loretta E. Lynch

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 30 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RENE GALDAMEZ SORTO, AKA Rene No. 13-71614
Galdamez-Sorto,
Agency No. A094-301-233
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 22, 2015**
Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Rene Galdamez Sorto, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his motion
to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005).
*
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 dismiss in part and grant in part the petition for review, and remand.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Galdamez Sorto’s contention that the BIA
abused its discretion in not accepting his 2012 appeal by certification, because he
failed to raise the issue of certification in his 2013 motion to reopen and therefore
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d
674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Galdamez Sorto’s contention that his case
warrants a favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v.
Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order).
When the BIA issued its decision in this case dismissing Galdamez Sorto’s
motion to reopen, it did not have the benefit of this court’s opinion in Hernandez v.
Holder, 738 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2013). We remand for the BIA to reconsider
Galdamez Sorto’s motion in light of this intervening opinion. See INS v. Ventura,
537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Galdamez Sorto’s remaining
contentions.
The parties shall bear their own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.
2 13-71614