Alfredo Navarro-Garcia 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 30 2015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
ALFREDO NAVARRO-GARCIA, No. 13-70166
Petitioner, Agency No. A019-144-366
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.
Alfredo Navarro-Garcia, 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 order denying his motion to reopen based on changed country
conditions. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
*
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).
claims of due process violations. Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1268-69 (9th
Cir. 2011). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Navarro-Garcia has not raised, and has therefore waived, any challenge to
the agency’s dispositive determinations that his motion to reopen was untimely and
that he did not establish changed country conditions under 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.23(b)(4)(I). See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011)
(issues not raised in an opening brief are waived). Accordingly, Navarro-Garcia
has not established that the BIA violated due process by denying his motion. See
Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to
prevail on a due process challenge).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Navarro-Garcia’s remaining contentions
because they were not raised before the agency and are therefore unexhausted. See
Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court lacks jurisdiction
to consider legal claims not presented in petitioner’s administrative proceedings
before the agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 13-70166