Milton Medrano-Torres v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 586 F. App'x 334 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 02 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MILTON MEDRANO-TORRES; No. 11-71356
DORIAN OSMAN FAVILENA-
TORRES, Agency Nos. A077-460-539
A077-460-538
Petitioners,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
MILTON MEDRANO-TORRES, No. 11-72910
Petitioner, Agency No. A077-460-539
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Milton Medrano-Torres and Dorian Osman Favilena-Torres, natives and
citizens of Nicaragua, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision
denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) (No. 11-71356). In addition, Milton
Medrano-Torres petitions for review of the BIA’s order denying his motion to
reconsider, which the BIA construed as both a motion to reconsider and a second
motion to reopen (No. 11-72910). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petitions for review.
With respect to petitioner Favilena-Torres (A077-460-538), the BIA
reopened and remanded proceedings for consideration of an application for
adjustment of status. Consequently, there is no final order of removal in effect for
Favilena-Torres and the court lacks jurisdiction over the petition for review (No.
11-71356) as to him. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1); Lopez-Ruiz v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2 11-71356/11-72910
886, 887 (9th Cir. 2002) (order) (dismissing, without prejudice, for lack of
jurisdiction). Thus, we dismiss the petition for review (No. 11-71356) as to
Favilena-Torres.
Further, we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s July 20, 2011, order
denying Medrano-Torres’s motion to reopen to adjust status, because he did not
file a petition for review of that order. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995);
Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir. 1996).
Finally, Medrano-Torres does not raise any arguments in his opening brief
regarding either the BIA’s denial of his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and CAT relief (No. 11-71356), or the BIA’s denial of his motion to
reconsider and second motion to reopen (No. 11-72910). See Martinez-Serrano,
94 F.3d at 1259-60 (issues not supported by argument are deemed waived).
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 11-71356/11-72910