FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 02 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PABLO CORONA-ALVAREZ, AKA No. 13-72891
Paulo Carona, AKA Paulo Corona, AKA
Paulo Alores Corona, AKA Jesus Agency No. A200-976-212
Rodriges, AKA Jesse Vargas,
Petitioner, MEMORANDUM*
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 25, 2015**
Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Pablo Corona-Alvarez, 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 (“IJ”) decision finding him removable and
*
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).
pretermitting his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We 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.
Corona-Alvarez does not raise, and has therefore waived, any arguments
challenging the agency’s determination that his conviction for violating California
Health and Safety Code § 11360(a) is a controlled substance violation under 8
U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-
60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in the opening brief
are deemed waived). Accordingly, the agency did not err in pretermitting Corona-
Alvarez’s application for cancellation of removal, where his controlled substance
violation made him statutorily ineligible for that relief. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229b(b)(1)(C).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Corona-Alvarez’s contention regarding the
Federal First Offender Act because he failed to exhaust this contention before the
agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 676 (9th Cir. 2004).
Corona-Alvarez’s remaining contentions are without merit.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 13-72891