NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUN 10 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
VICTORIANO GAUNA-SALAZAR, No. 13-72488
AKA Victoriano Gauna,
Agency No. A036-586-234
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted June 5, 2015
Pasadena, California
Before: BYBEE and BEA, Circuit Judges, and FOOTE,** District Judge.
Petitioner Victoriano Gauna-Salazar seeks review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) order dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s (IJ) order of removal. We deny in part and dismiss in part his petition.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Elizabeth E. Foote, District Judge for the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.
1. Gauna concedes his claim the BIA improperly applied the modified
categorical approach to Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11378 is foreclosed by
Coronado v. Holder, 759 F.3d 977, 985–86 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny his petition
as to that claim but note it is preserved for en banc or Supreme Court review.
2. Gauna claims the BIA failed to consider his IJ-bias, asylum, withholding-
of-removal, and CAT claims and seeks remand to the BIA for consideration of
those claims in the first instance.
The BIA is “not free to ignore arguments raised by a petitioner.” Id. at 987.
But the opposite is also true. The BIA need not address arguments not raised. Cf.
Alvarado v. Holder, 759 F.3d 1121, 1127–28 (9th Cir. 2014). Here, the BIA did
not address Gauna’s IJ-bias, asylum, withholding-of-removal, and CAT claims
because—even liberally construing his pro se briefing—Gauna failed to raise them.
As such, those claims are unexhausted, and we lack jurisdiction to consider them.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1).
DENIED IN PART and DISMISSED IN PART.