AUGUSTO ARCHILA V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 09-70839 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED JAN 26 2012 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AUGUSTO RENE ARCHILA, Petitioner, No. 09-70839 Agency No. A073-024-780 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 17, 2012 ** Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Augusto Rene Archila, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions 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 protection under the Convention Against Torture * 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). ( CAT ). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. ยง 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to review Archila s challenge to the agency s time-bar finding because he failed to raise it to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3rd 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (no jurisdiction over claims not presented below). Archila does not challenge any of the inconsistencies the agency identified, which is a dispositive basis for denying withholding of removal. See MartinezSerrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in opening brief are waived). In addition, Archila does not make any argument specific to his CAT claim. See id. at 1259 ( Issues raised in a brief that are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned. ). Accordingly, we deny the petition as to Archila s withholding of removal and CAT claims. Finally, we note that Archila s counsel previously has been admonished by a panel of this court for failure to comply with our procedural rules. Counsel s opening brief in this case also failed to provide specific contentions and citations to the parts of the record on which Archila relied, appears to have been cut and pasted from one or more other appellate briefs, and does not meet the court s standards. See generally Fed. R. App. P. 28, 9th Cir. R. 28-2. PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 2 09-70839
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.
