FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 19 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WELMER DE JESUS RAMIREZ- No. 12-71123
RAMIREZ,
Agency No. A200-694-530
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 10, 2015**
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Welmer de Jesus Ramirez-Ramirez, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to
reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
*
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).
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v.
Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We dismiss in part and deny in part the
petition for review.
Our review is limited to the administrative record, and thus we do not
consider materials attached to petitioner’s opening brief that were not part of the
record before the agency. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en
banc).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Ramirez-Ramirez’s unexhausted
contentions in his opening brief regarding the potential merits of his asylum claim.
See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction
to consider issues that have not been administratively exhausted).
Finally, the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Ramirez-Ramirez’s
timely motion to reopen based on his new application for asylum or based on
evidence of his father’s asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(3) (“A
motion to reopen for the purpose of providing the alien an opportunity to apply for
any form of discretionary relief will not be granted . . . unless the relief is sought
on the basis of circumstances that have arisen subsequent to the hearing.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
2 12-71123