URI CAMPOS AVALOS V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 15-70919 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED DEC 20 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT URI CAMPOS AVALOS, Petitioner, No. 15-70919 Agency No. A092-658-407 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 14, 2016** Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. Uri Campos Avalos, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order of removal. 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Campos Avalos fails to raise, and therefore has waived, any challenge to the agency’s determinations. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (a petitioner waives a contention by failing to raise it in the opening brief). We lack jurisdiction to consider Campos Avalos’ unexhausted contentions that his removal proceedings should be reopened and that he established he would be persecuted due to his expressed views against the government of Mexico. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court lacks jurisdiction to consider legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before the agency). We lack jurisdiction to consider Campos Avalos’ contention that his case should be remanded for consideration of prosecutorial discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 15-70919

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.