BAYRON CABRERA-MORALES V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 15-73656 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUL 17 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BAYRON CABRERA-MORALES, AKA Bayron Danilo Cabrera Morales, AKA Bayron Danilo Cabrera, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-73656 Agency No. A072-814-881 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 11, 2017** Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges. Bayron Cabrera-Morales, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for protection under the * 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). Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. LopezCardona v. Holder, 662 F.3d 1110, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. We do not consider the materials petitioner references in his opening brief or filed separately (Docket Entry No. 21) that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that, even if credible, Cabrera-Morales failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to Guatemala. See Lopez-Cardona, 662 F.3d at 1114. We lack jurisdiction to consider Cabrera-Morales’s contentions regarding removability, asylum, and procedural due process that he presents for the first time in his opening brief. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust claim in administrative proceedings below). Finally, Cabrera-Morales’s challenge to the agency’s bond determination is not properly before us. See Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth procedure for challenging bond determinations). Thus, we dismiss Cabrera-Morales’ motion to appeal the bond decision (Docket Entry No. 25) as outside the scope of Cabrera-Morales’ petition for review. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 15-73656

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.