Daniel Cardenas-Rubio v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANIEL CARDENAS-RUBIO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73884
Agency No. A076-605-721
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Daniel Cardenas-Rubio, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny
in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
FILED
JAN 06 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-73884 2
In his opening brief, Cardenas-Rubio failed to address, and therefore has
waived any challenge to, the BIA’s dispositive determination that his motion was
untimely without exception. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60
(9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief
are waived).
We lack jurisdiction to review Cardenas-Rubio’s ineffective assistance of
counsel contention because he failed to raise that issue before the BIA. See Barron
v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (this court lacks jurisdiction to
review contentions not raised before the agency).
Cardenas-Rubio’s contention that the BIA violated his due process rights by
disregarding his hardship evidence is not supported by the record and does not
amount to a colorable constitutional claim. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424
F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]raditional abuse of discretion challenges recast
as alleged due process violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims
that would invoke our jurisdiction.”).
Cardenas-Rubio’s remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --