YANIRA ALCARAZ-BARAJAS V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-71429 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED JUN 20 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT YANIRA ALCARAZ-BARAJAS, Petitioner, No. 14-71429 Agency No. A092-407-275 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 14, 2016** Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Yanira Alcaraz-Barajas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to remand and dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of * 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). discretion the denial of a motion to remand. Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Alcaraz-Barajas does not challenge the agency’s determination that her conviction for second-degree robbery is an aggravated felony crime of violence that renders her removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Alcaraz-Barajas’ motion to remand, where she failed to submit evidence sufficient to establish prima facie eligibility for adjustment of status. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1255, 1182(h)(1)(B); see Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (BIA may deny a motion for failure to establish a prima facie case for the relief sought). We lack jurisdiction over Alcaraz-Barajas’ unexhausted contentions regarding a continuance, waiver of her right to counsel, and administrative closure. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010). In light of our disposition, we need not reach Alcaraz-Barajas’ remaining contention regarding Negrete-Ramirez v. Holder, 741 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2014). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 14-71429

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.