JOSE GOMEZ V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-74039 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED AUG 03 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE DANIEL GOMEZ, No. 14-74039 Petitioner, Agency No. A070-943-998 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 26, 2016** Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Jose Daniel Gomez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for relief from removal. * 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 deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. In his opening brief, Gomez does not raise, and therefore has waived, any challenge to the agency’s determinations that he is removable, and that he failed to demonstrate eligibility for relief from removal. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (a petitioner waives an issue by failing to raise it in the opening brief). To the extent Gomez contends he is eligible for prosecutorial discretion, we lack jurisdiction to consider his contention. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012). We lack jurisdiction to consider Gomez’s unexhausted contention regarding his counsel in criminal proceedings. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010). We grant the government’s motion to strike new evidence (Docket Entry No. 33). See Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365, 371 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining standard for review of out-of-record evidence). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 14-74039

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.