Augusto Archila v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 467 F. App'x 633 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            JAN 26 2012
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    AUGUSTO RENE ARCHILA,                            No. 09-70839
    Petitioner,                       Agency No. A073-024-780
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted January 17, 2012 **
    Before:        LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    Augusto Rene Archila, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
    review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
    from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,
    withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We dismiss in part and
    deny in part the petition for review.
    We lack jurisdiction to review Archila’s challenge to the agency’s time-bar
    finding because he failed to raise it to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3rd
    674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (no jurisdiction over claims not presented below).
    Archila does not challenge any of the inconsistencies the agency identified,
    which is a dispositive basis for denying withholding of removal. See Martinez-
    Serrano v. INS, 
    94 F.3d 1256
    , 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically
    raised and argued in opening brief are waived). In addition, Archila does not make
    any argument specific to his CAT claim. See 
    id. at 1259
     (“Issues raised in a brief
    that are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”). Accordingly, we
    deny the petition as to Archila’s withholding of removal and CAT claims.
    Finally, we note that Archila’s counsel previously has been admonished by a
    panel of this court for failure to comply with our procedural rules. Counsel’s
    opening brief in this case also failed to provide specific contentions and citations to
    the parts of the record on which Archila relied, appears to have been cut and pasted
    from one or more other appellate briefs, and does not meet the court’s standards.
    See generally Fed. R. App. P. 28, 9th Cir. R. 28-2.
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
    2                                     09-70839
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-70839

Citation Numbers: 467 F. App'x 633

Judges: Callahan, Leavy, Tallman

Filed Date: 1/26/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/5/2023