WELMER OCHOA-DELEON V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 16-71693 (9th Cir. 2017)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 21 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS WELMER OCHOA-DELEON, AKA Carlos No. 16-71693 Deleon-Ochoa, AKA Lalo Ochoa, AKA Lola Ochoa, AKA Otto Ochoa, AKA Agency No. A200-245-963 Welmer Dionel Ochoa, Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 18, 2017** Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Welmer Ochoa-Deleon, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his request for a continuance and denying * 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). his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Ochoa-Deleon has waived any challenge to the agency’s denial of his request for a continuance and his application for cancellation of removal. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (issues not raised in an opening brief are waived). We lack jurisdiction to consider Ochoa-Deleon’s unexhausted contentions regarding asylum and related relief. 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). Accordingly, we deny his related request for judicial notice. See Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365, 371 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating standard for review of out-of-record evidence). We lack jurisdiction to consider Ochoa-Deleon’s request for prosecutorial discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 16-71693

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.