LUIS ORDAZ-LEYVA V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 13-70943 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED JUN 25 2015 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LUIS MIGUEL ORDAZ-LEYVA, AKA Eduardo Urietta, AKA Pablo Ordaz, AKA Eduardo Urietta-Leyva, AKA Antonio Peris, AKA Antonio Pen, No. 13-70943 Agency No. A078-737-910 MEMORANDUM* Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 22, 2015** Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. Luis Miguel Ordez-Leyva, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, * 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). withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1011-12 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The record does not compel the conclusion that Ordaz-Leyva established changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5); see also Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 657-58 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). Thus, we deny the petition as to OrdazLeyva’s asylum claim. In light of this dispositive determination, we reject OrdazLeyva’s request for a remand based on Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013). Ordaz-Leyva does not challenge the BIA’s finding that he waived any challenge to the IJ’s denial of his withholding of removal and CAT claims. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996). We lack jurisdiction to consider Ordaz-Leyva’s contentions regarding withholding of removal and CAT, because he failed to raise these claims before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004). 2 13-70943 Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review Ordaz-Leyva’s challenge to the agency’s discretionary denial of voluntary departure. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(B), 1229c(f); Gil v. Holder, 651 F.3d 1000, 1006 (9th Cir. 2011). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 3 13-70943

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.