LUIS RAMIREZ-GREGORIO V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 15-71250 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED SEP 21 2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LUIS RAMIREZ-GREGORIO, Petitioner, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-71250 Agency No. A205-648-301 MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 13, 2016** Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. We grant Respondent’s unopposed motion to expedite this appeal, and deny her motion to lift the stay (Docket Entry No. 26). Luis Ramirez-Gregorio, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his * 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). application for asylum. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, and for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2008). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to review Ramirez-Gregorio’s contention that he established extraordinary circumstances excusing the delay in filing his asylum application based on legal disability and applications for other immigration benefits because he did not raise this contention before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency). Apart from his contention regarding extraordinary circumstances, RamirezGregorio does not challenge the BIA’s finding that he did not establish changed circumstances excusing his untimely asylum application. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-1080 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, we deny the petition for review. PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 2 15-71250
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.
