Jose Pichardo-Vazquez v. Jefferson Sessions, III

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 20 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE LUIS PICHARDO-VAZQUEZ, No. 16-70609 Petitioner, Agency No. A200-700-175 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 15, 2018** Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Jose Luis Pichardo-Vazquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for cancellation of * 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). removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Pichardo-Vazquez does not raise, and therefore he waives, any challenge to the agency’s determination that he is statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal, because he was incarcerated for more than 180 days as a result of a criminal conviction. See Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to contest issue in opening brief resulted in waiver). We lack jurisdiction to consider Pichardo-Vazquez’s unexhausted contention that his pretrial detention was unconstitutional and therefore should not count as confinement under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(7). See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court lacks jurisdiction to consider legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before the agency). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 16-70609