FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 26 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IVAN ACEVEDO HERNANDEZ, No. 12-72930
Petitioner, Agency No. A094-305-115
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 24, 2013 **
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Ivan Acevedo Hernandez, native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Acevedo Hernandez fails to raise, and therefore waives,
any challenge to the agency’s dispositive determinations that he is removable, that
he does not qualify for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief, and that he
was afforded a full and fair hearing. See 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).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Acevedo Hernandez’s contention that he is
eligible for cancellation of removal, because he failed to exhaust this claim before
the BIA. 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.”).
Finally, our review is limited to the administrative record and thus we do not
consider materials included with Acevedo Hernandez’s opening brief that were not
available to the agency. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en
banc).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 12-72930