Opinion
No. 13-74014
10-20-2015
RIGOBERTO TORRES-SALGADO, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Agency No. A079-812-667 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Rigoberto Torres-Salgado, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's order denying his motion to reopen proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo constitutional claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Torres-Salgado's motion to reopen for failure to establish prejudice, where he did not submit with his motion any application for relief or any evidence that he had plausible grounds for the relief he claims he would have sought. Agyeman v. INS, 296 F.3d 871, 884 (9th Cir. 2002) (in order to obtain relief, petitioner must show that the due process violation "potentially affect[ed] the outcome of the proceedings").
We lack jurisdiction over Torres-Salgado's unexhausted claims that he was rendered ineffective assistance or that his circumstances warrant equitable tolling of the filing deadline. Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) ("We lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an alien's administrative proceedings before the BIA.").
We do not consider documents outside the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (the court's review is limited to the administrative record).
Torres-Salgado's remaining contentions that the agency ignored arguments or improperly analyzed whether his 2003 proceedings constituted a gross miscarriage of justice are unavailing.
PETITIONER FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.