FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 26 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN FERNANDO LOZANO-SANTOS, No. 13-72238
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-712-914
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Juan Fernando Lozano-Santos, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his
motion to remand, and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order of
removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
*
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).
discretion the denial of a motion to remand. Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095,
1098 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lozano-Santos’s motion
to remand to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture where he did not submit applications for relief, see 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1063-64 (9th Cir.
2008) (holding the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding petitioner did not
satisfy the procedural requirements for his motion, in part because petitioner failed
to submit a “completed application for relief.”), and failed to establish a prima
facie case for relief, see Shin v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2008)
(petitioner bears the burden of proving the evidence would likely change the result
in the case).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Lozano-Santos’s unexhausted contention
regarding his fear of harm and torture by government paramilitaries. See Tijani v.
Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (court lacks jurisdiction to review
claims not raised to the agency).
To the extent Lozano-Santos contends that he did not commit a drug offense
and is attempting to have his conviction vacated, this conviction is final for
immigration purposes and this challenge is not properly before us. See Ramirez-
2 13-72238
Villalpando v. Holder, 645 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (“A petitioner may not
collaterally attack his state court conviction on a petition for review of a BIA
decision.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 13-72238