FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 21 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAFAEL BARCENAS, No. 11-73588
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-021-448
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 12, 2013 **
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Rafael Barcenas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review
from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from
an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400
*
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).
F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
In his opening brief, Barcenas fails to address, and therefore has waived any
challenge to, the BIA’s determination that he is ineligible for adjustment of status,
cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding, and relief under the Convention
Against Torture. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.
1996) (issues that are not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief
are waived).
We lack jurisdiction to review Barcenas’ contention that the IJ abused his
discretion and violated due process by denying Barcenas’ request for a continuance
because he failed to raise that issue before the BIA and thereby failed to exhaust
his administrative remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.
2004) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the
agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 11-73588