Jaime Castaneda 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JAIME CASTANEDA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-71058
Agency No. A095-877-313
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 14, 2013**
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Jaime Castaneda, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
FILED
AUG 16 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-71058 2
In his opening brief, Castaneda fails to address, and therefore has waived,
any challenge to the BIA’s summary dismissal of his appeal for failure to provide
statements specifying the reasons underlying his challenge to the IJ’s decision
granting voluntary departure. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-
80 (9th Cir. 2013) (a petitioner waives an issue by failing to raise it in the opening
brief).
We lack jurisdiction to review any challenge to the BIA’s April 5, 2010,
order of removal determining that Castaneda is statutorily ineligible for
cancellation of removal because the petition for review is not timely as to that
order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); see also Pinto v. Holder, 648 F.3d 976, 985-86
(9th Cir. 2011) (explaining that the BIA’s order denying relief from removal and
remanding to the IJ for voluntary departure is a final order of removal triggering
the 30-day deadline for petitioning for review of final orders).
In light of our disposition, we need not address Castaneda’s remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --