JORGE PLASCENCIA-FERNANDEZ V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 17-70572 (9th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FEB 21 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JORGE PLASCENCIA-FERNANDEZ, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-70572 Agency No. A200-807-159 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 19, 2019** Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Jorge Plascencia-Fernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his request for a continuance and ordering him removed. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. * 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). To the extent Plascencia-Fernandez challenges the agency’s denial of cancellation of removal and his request for a continuance, he has waived these contentions, because he advances no argument to support them. See MartinezSerrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised in a brief that are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”) We lack jurisdiction to consider Plascencia-Fernandez’s unexhausted contentions that the IJ violated due process or that his former representative was ineffective. 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); Correa-Rivera v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1128, 1130 (9th Cir. 2013) (ineffective assistance of counsel claims can be raised by filing a motion to reopen with the agency). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 17-70572

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.