FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 01 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AARON TREVIZO ORTIZ, a.k.a. Aron No. 10-72844
Trevizo Ortiz,
Agency No. A099-514-428
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 21, 2012 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Aaron Trevizo Ortiz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review de novo constitutional challenges to removal orders, Lopez-
*
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).
Rodriguez v. Mukasey, 536 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 2008), and deny the petition
for review.
Even if we assume that Ortiz’s allegedly unlawful arrest and detention was
an egregious violation of his constitutional rights, the agency did not err in
concluding that there was substantial independent evidence in the record to
establish that he nonetheless was subject to removal as charged. See Hoonsilapa v.
INS, 575 F.2d 735, 738 (9th Cir. 1978), modified by 586 F.2d 755 (9th Cir. 1978)
(“[T]he mere fact that Fourth Amendment illegality directs attention to a particular
suspect does not require exclusion of evidence subsequently unearthed from
independent sources.”).
In his opening brief, Ortiz fails to address, and therefore has waived any
challenge to, the BIA’s determination that he is ineligible for cancellation of
removal. 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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 10-72844