NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 21 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JORGE PLASCENCIA-FERNANDEZ, No. 17-70572
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-807-159
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 19, 2019**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Jorge Plascencia-Fernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from
an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his request for a continuance and
ordering him removed. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny
in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
*
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).
To the extent Plascencia-Fernandez challenges the agency’s denial of
cancellation of removal and his request for a continuance, he has waived these
contentions, because he advances no argument to support them. See Martinez-
Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised in a brief
that are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”)
We lack jurisdiction to consider Plascencia-Fernandez’s unexhausted
contentions that the IJ violated due process or that his former representative was
ineffective. 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); Correa-Rivera v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1128, 1130
(9th Cir. 2013) (ineffective assistance of counsel claims can be raised by filing a
motion to reopen with the agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 17-70572