JOSE CALLEJAS-GUZMAN V. LORETTA LYNCH, No. 15-73456 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 19 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE ESTANISLAO CALLEJASGUZMAN, AKA Jose Estanislao GuzmanCallejas, No. 15-73456 Agency No. A094-457-298 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 14, 2016** Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. Jose Estanislao Callejas-Guzman, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to remand and dismissing his appeal from an immigration * 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). judge’s order of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Callejas-Guzman does not raise, and therefore has waived, any challenge to the BIA’s dispositive determinations regarding asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture, cancellation of removal, suspension of deportation, U-visa eligibility, and ineffective assistance in denying his motion to remand and dismissing his appeal. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (issues not raised in an opening brief are waived). Callejas-Guzman failed to exhaust his contentions regarding lawful presence, his conviction for driving under the influence, and Temporary Protected Status. See id. (the court lacks jurisdiction to consider legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before the agency). We do not consider the extra-record materials that Callejas-Guzman submitted with his opening brief and in Docket No. 17. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A) (the court’s review is limited to the administrative record). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 15-73456

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.