ADALBERTO MEDRANO-RIOS V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 11-72183 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 28 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ADALBERTO MEDRANO-RIOS, Petitioner, No. 11-72183 Agency No. A073-894-080 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 19, 2012** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. Adalberto Medrano-Rios, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order denying his motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. * 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). In his opening brief, Medrano-Rios fails to raise, and therefore waives, any challenge to the BIA s denial of his motion to reopen on the grounds that his notice argument was adjudicated in a prior BIA decision, that his motion to apply for cancellation of removal was untimely, and that cancellation of removal was not available to aliens in deportation proceedings. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (a petitioner waives an issue by failing to raise it in the opening brief). We lack jurisdiction to consider Medrano-Rios contention that his attorney committed ineffective assistance of counsel, because Medrano-Rios failed to exhaust this claim before the BIA. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) ( We lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an alien s administrative proceedings before the BIA. ). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 11-72183

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.