JOSE ESTANISLAO CALLEJAS- GUZMAN, AKA Jose Estanislao Guzman- Callejas v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ESTANISLAO CALLEJAS-
GUZMAN, AKA Jose Estanislao Guzman-
Callejas,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 15-73456
Agency No. A094-457-298
MEMORANDUM*
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
FILED
DEC 19 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 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.
15-73456 2

-- 2 of 2 --