NELSON VASQUEZ V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 13-74441 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED FEB 22 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NELSON NOEL VASQUEZ, Petitioner, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 13-74441 Agency No. A097-883-818 MEMORANDUM* JEFF B. SESSIONS, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 14, 2017** Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. Nelson Noel Vasquez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider and reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). motion to reopen or reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Vasquez’s motion to reconsider because he failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). We lack jurisdiction to review Vasquez’s unexhausted contentions regarding compliance with Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), and administrative closure. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review the merits of a legal claim not presented in administrative proceedings below). We do not consider the extra-record evidence submitted for the first time with Vasquez’s opening brief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A) (judicial review is limited to the administrative record); Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365, 371 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating standard for review of out-of-record evidence). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 13-74441

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.