FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 03 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MANUEL ARIAS VALDEZ, No. 09-73599
Petitioner, Agency No. A091-557-790
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 24, 2011 **
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Manuel Arias Valdez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s findings of fact
*
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).
and review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-
92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding of inadmissibility based on
Arias Valdez’s attempt to gain admission to the United States by presenting what
he knew to be an invalid green card. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) (“Any alien
who, by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact, seeks to procure . . .
admission into the United States . . . is inadmissible.”).
The BIA correctly determined that Arias Valdez was ineligible for
cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a) because his status as a lawful
permanent resident (“LPR”) was terminated when he was ordered removed in
1999. See 8 C.F.R. § 1001.1(p) (LPR status terminates upon entry of a final order
of removal); Padilla-Romero v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1011, 1013 (9th Cir. 2010) (per
curiam) (an alien who has lost his LPR status is ineligible for cancellation of
removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)).
The BIA correctly determined that Arias Valdez was not prejudiced by his
former counsel’s failure to file a brief on appeal where Arias Valdez filed a timely
pro se brief after requesting that his counsel be permitted to withdraw. See
Mohammed, 400 F.3d at 793. Arias Valdez fails to address, and therefore has
waived any challenge to, the BIA’s determinations that former counsel did not fail
2 09-73599
to appear at the removal hearing on Arias Valdez’s behalf, and that Arias Valdez
was not prejudiced by counsel’s advice concerning his cancellation claim. See
Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993, 997-98 (9th Cir. 2007) (issues not
addressed in an opening brief are deemed waived). We lack jurisdiction to
consider Arias Valdez’s other claims of ineffective assistance of counsel because
he did not exhaust them before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674,
677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Arias Valdez’s challenges to his 1999
removal order because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. See
Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
Arias Valdez’s remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 09-73599