FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 24 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAYNOR JOEL ALVAREZ-CLOTTER, No. 16-70954
Petitioner, Agency No. A206-466-994
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 18, 2017**
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Maynor Joel Alvarez-Clotter, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions pro
se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying his applications for cancellation
of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Molina-Estrada v.
INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 2002), and 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.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of cancellation of
removal, where Alvarez-Clotter failed to submit to the immigration court sufficient
evidence of any qualifying relatives. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D).
In his opening brief, Alvarez-Clotter fails to address, and therefore has
waived any challenge to, the agency’s denial of his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091
n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (issues not raised in an opening brief are waived).
To the extent Alvarez-Clotter contends the agency violated due process, this
claim fails because he has not established error or prejudice. See Lata v. INS, 204
F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and substantial prejudice to
prevail on a due process claim).
We do not consider the extra-record evidence submitted for the first time
with Alvarez-Clotter’s opening brief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A) (judicial
2 16-70954
review is limited to the administrative record); Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365, 371
(9th Cir. 2010) (stating standard for review of out-of-record evidence).
Alvarez-Clotter’s challenges to his detention and the agency’s denial of
bond are not properly before us. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(d); Leonardo v.
Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth procedure for
challenging bond determinations).
Alvarez-Clotter’s motion to reconsider is denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 16-70954