JOSE PICHARDO-VAZQUEZ V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, III, No. 16-70609 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 20 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE LUIS PICHARDO-VAZQUEZ, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-70609 Agency No. A200-700-175 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 15, 2018** Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Jose Luis Pichardo-Vazquez, 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 decision denying his applications for cancellation of * 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). removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Pichardo-Vazquez does not raise, and therefore he waives, any challenge to the agency’s determination that he is statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal, because he was incarcerated for more than 180 days as a result of a criminal conviction. See Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to contest issue in opening brief resulted in waiver). We lack jurisdiction to consider Pichardo-Vazquez’s unexhausted contention that his pretrial detention was unconstitutional and therefore should not count as confinement under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(7). 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 before the agency). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 16-70609

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.