NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MIGUEL GUTTIEREZ-RUIZ, No. 17-70791
Petitioner, Agency No. A206-548-188
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.
Miguel Guttierez-Ruiz, 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 application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
*
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).
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law
and constitutional claims. Roman-Suaste v. Holder, 766 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir.
2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Guttierez-Ruiz fails to challenge the agency’s denial of
CAT relief. 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 Guttierez-Ruiz’s contentions as to the
validity of his criminal conviction because these claims are impermissible
collateral attacks upon his state court conviction. See Ramirez-Villalpando v.
Holder, 645 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that petitioner could not
collaterally attack his state court conviction on a petition for review of a BIA
decision).
We also lack jurisdiction to consider Guttierez-Ruiz’s contentions as to his
eligibility for a U-visa and whether his conviction constitutes a particularly serious
crime because Guttierez-Ruiz failed to raise these issues to the BIA. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review
claims not presented to the agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 17-70791