FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 20 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YANIRA ALCARAZ-BARAJAS, No. 14-71429
Petitioner, Agency No. A092-407-275
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Yanira Alcaraz-Barajas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to remand
and dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) 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. Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d
1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
Alcaraz-Barajas does not challenge the agency’s determination that her
conviction for second-degree robbery is an aggravated felony crime of violence
that renders her removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). See
Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not
specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Alcaraz-Barajas’ motion to
remand, where she failed to submit evidence sufficient to establish prima facie
eligibility for adjustment of status. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1255, 1182(h)(1)(B); see
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (BIA may deny a motion
for failure to establish a prima facie case for the relief sought).
We lack jurisdiction over Alcaraz-Barajas’ unexhausted contentions
regarding a continuance, waiver of her right to counsel, and administrative closure.
See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010).
In light of our disposition, we need not reach Alcaraz-Barajas’ remaining
contention regarding Negrete-Ramirez v. Holder, 741 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2014).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 14-71429