Elias Jesus Del Cid v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 09-70768 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 27 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ELIAS DE JESUS DEL CID, Petitioner, No. 09-70768 Agency No. A096-045-895 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 19, 2010 ** Before: O SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges. Elias De Jesus Del Cid, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se 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 ). * 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). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review questions of law de novo, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. In his opening brief, petitioner failed to challenge the agency s dispositive denial of his asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued are deemed waived). We lack jurisdiction to address petitioner s contentions related to cancellation of removal because the record reflects that he did not seek this form of relief. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 676-78 (9th Cir. 2004). Finally, petitioner s contention that the BIA failed to adequately articulate its reasons for denying his request for relief from removal is not supported by the record. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 09-70768

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.