EVELYN MEDRANO V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 12-73550 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED SEP 02 2015 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EVELYN PATRICIA MEDRANO, AKA Patricia Medrano, No. 12-73550 Agency No. A029-187-742 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 25, 2015** Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Evelyn Patricia Medrano, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), cancellation of * 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). removal, and adjustment of status. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Medrano does not raise, and has therefore waived, any argument challenging the agency’s determination with respect to CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised in a brief that are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned. Furthermore, an issue referred to in the appellant’s statement of the case but not discussed in the body of the opening brief is deemed waived.” (citations omitted)). We lack jurisdiction to consider Medrano’s contentions regarding her applications for asylum and cancellation of removal, as well as her contentions regarding her past criminal convictions, where she failed to exhaust these claims before the agency. Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 12-73550

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.