Cesar Gomez-Rivas v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 436 F. App'x 749 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 06 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CESAR GOMEZ-RIVAS, No. 10-70197
Petitioner, Agency No. A041-830-317
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 24, 2011 **
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Cesar Gomez-Rivas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512
*
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).
F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
We agree with the agency’s conclusion that Gomez-Rivas’ 2009 controlled
substance offense is not amenable to treatment under the Federal First Offender
Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3607. See de Jesus Melendez v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 1019,
1025-27 (9th Cir. 2007).
The agency properly determined that Gomez-Rivas was ineligible for
cancellation of removal because he had previously received that form of relief. See
8 U.S.C. § 1229b(c)(6).
In his opening brief, Gomez-Rivas fails to address, and therefore has waived
any challenge to, the agency’s determination that his convictions for being under
the influence of a controlled substance involved federally-defined controlled
substances. See Martinez–Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996)
(issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are deemed
waived).
We lack jurisdiction to review Gomez-Rivas’ contention that his 2009
conviction was not a “conviction” as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48) because he
failed to exhaust this claim before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674,
677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
2 10-70197
Gomez-Rivas’ remaining contentions are not persuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 10-70197