FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 13 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HERSON DANIEL HERNANDEZ- No. 08-72881
ELIAS,
Agency No. A070-111-917
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010 **
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Herson Daniel Hernandez-Elias, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming
without opinion an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications
for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against
*
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).
Torture (“CAT”), and for special rule cancellation of removal under the
Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (“NACARA”). Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of
constitutional violations in immigration proceedings, Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510,
516 (9th Cir. 2001), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review Hernandez-Elias’ contention that the agency
erred in denying relief under NACARA because he failed to raise that issue before
the BIA and thereby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
In his opening brief, Hernandez-Elias fails to address, and therefore has
waived any challenge to, the agency’s determination that he did not establish
eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the CAT. See
Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not
specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).
Hernandez-Elias’ contention that the BIA violated due process by affirming
without opinion the IJ’s decision is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350
F.3d 845, 848 (9th Cir. 2003) (BIA’s summary affirmance procedure does not
violate due process).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
2 08-72881