Daniel Cardenas-Rubio v. Eric H. Holder Jr, No. 08-73884 (9th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED JAN 06 2011 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DANIEL CARDENAS-RUBIO, Petitioner, No. 08-73884 Agency No. A076-605-721 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 14, 2010 ** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Daniel Cardenas-Rubio, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. 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 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). In his opening brief, Cardenas-Rubio failed to address, and therefore has waived any challenge to, the BIA s dispositive determination that his motion was untimely without exception. 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). We lack jurisdiction to review Cardenas-Rubio s ineffective assistance of counsel contention because he failed to raise that issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the agency). Cardenas-Rubio s contention that the BIA violated his due process rights by disregarding his hardship evidence is not supported by the record and does not amount to a colorable constitutional claim. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005) ( [T]raditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction. ). Cardenas-Rubio s remaining contentions are unavailing. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 08-73884

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.