Opinion
No. 14-70499
08-03-2016
MIGUEL ANGEL LOPEZ-VELEZ, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Agency No. A087-906-024 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Miguel Angel Lopez-Velez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' 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 ("CAT"). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's conclusion that Lopez-Velez did not establish changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4), (5); see also Ramadan v. Gonzalez, 479 F.3d 646, 656-58 (9th Cir. 2007). Thus, we deny Lopez-Velez's petition as to his asylum claim.
Lopez-Velez's counseled opening brief does not raise any arguments challenging the agency's rejection of his withholding of removal or CAT claims. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument in the brief are deemed abandoned).
Lopez-Velez asserts his case warrants remand and reopening based on "newly discovered facts" and potential eligibility for adjustment of status, waiver of inadmissibility, or relief pursuant to NACARA. We lack jurisdiction to consider these claims because Lopez-Velez did not present them to the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
Finally, Lopez-Velez's claim that his case warrants prosecutorial discretion is not subject to judicial review. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.