NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 23 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN A. VELAZQUEZ PINEDA, No. 16-71970
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-724-137
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 17, 2022**
Before: S.R. THOMAS, PAEZ, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Juan A. Velazquez Pineda, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
*
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).
Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de
novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Simeonov v.
Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny in part and dismiss in part
the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Velazquez Pineda does not contest, and therefore
waives, the BIA’s dispositive determination that he did not challenge the IJ’s bases
for denying asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. See Lopez-
Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically
raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, we deny the
petition for review as to these claims.
Velazquez Pineda’s contentions that the agency violated his due process
rights fail. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (error is required
to prevail on a due process claim).
We lack jurisdiction to consider whether Velazquez Pineda’s case warrants a
favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d
642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 16-71970