ASMINDA RAMON-PEDROZA V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 12-71676 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 20 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ASMINDA SYLVIA RAMONPEDROZA, No. 12-71676 Agency No. A096-229-366 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 14, 2013** Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Asminda Sylvia Ramon-Pedroza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge s ( IJ ) decision denying her applications for cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under * 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). the Convention Against Torture. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Ramon-Pedroza failed to raise in her opening brief, and therefore has waived, any challenge to the agency s dispositive determinations that she is removable and that she does not qualify for the relief requested. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (noting the court generally will not take up arguments not raised in an alien s opening brief ). We lack jurisdiction to review Ramon-Pedroza s contention that the IJ should have given her more time to pursue her case because she failed to raise that issue before the BIA, and thereby failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. See id. (no jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in the petitioner s administrative proceedings before the BIA). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 12-71676

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.