ALFREDO NAVARRO-GARCIA V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 13-70166 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 30 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALFREDO NAVARRO-GARCIA, Petitioner, No. 13-70166 Agency No. A019-144-366 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 22, 2015** Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Alfredo Navarro-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying his motion to reopen based on changed country conditions. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo * 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). claims of due process violations. Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1268-69 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Navarro-Garcia has not raised, and has therefore waived, any challenge to the agency’s dispositive determinations that his motion to reopen was untimely and that he did not establish changed country conditions under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(I). See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (issues not raised in an opening brief are waived). Accordingly, Navarro-Garcia has not established that the BIA violated due process by denying his motion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge). We lack jurisdiction to consider Navarro-Garcia’s remaining contentions because they were not raised before the agency and are therefore unexhausted. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court lacks jurisdiction to consider legal claims not presented in petitioner’s administrative proceedings before the agency). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 13-70166

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.