DAVID URRUTIA-GUERRA V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 13-72927 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED AUG 04 2015 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DAVID OCTAVIO URRUTIA-GUERRA, Petitioner, No. 13-72927 Agency No. A070-068-355 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals July 21, 2015** Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. David Octavio Urrutia-Guerra, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigrations Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for special rule cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, and * 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). protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir. 2013). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to consider Urrutia-Guerra’s contentions regarding eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal based on a particular social group comprised of Guatemalans returning to Guatemala from the United States, where Urrutia-Guerra failed to exhaust these contentions before the BIA. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court lacks jurisdiction to consider legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings). Urrutia-Guerra has not raised, and has therefore waived, any challenge to the agency’s denial of special rule cancellation of removal and CAT relief. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (issues not raised in an opening brief are waived). PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 2 13-72927

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.