Ibrahim Said Aoun v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IBRAHIM SAID AOUN,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-70623
Agency No. A099-209-217
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Ibrahim Said Aoun, a native of Lebanon and a citizen of Canada, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of his application for adjustment of
FILED
AUG 01 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 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

status, and denying his motion to remand. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Aoun has not challenged the BIA’s determination that he failed to support
his motion to remand with evidence that a visa petition had been refiled on his
behalf. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (issues not
raised in an opening brief are waived). Because the BIA’s determination is
dispositive, we do not reach Aoun’s remaining contention regarding his prior
counsel’s ineffective assistance.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Aoun’s contentions challenging the United
States Citizenship and Immigration Services’ revocation of his approved visa
petition, and the BIA’s September 15, 2011, order affirming such revocation. See
Elbez v. INS, 767 F.2d 1313, 1314 (9th Cir. 1985) (visa petition decisions are
collateral matters not within the scope of a deportation proceeding, and therefore
not reviewable by the court of appeals).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Aoun’s unexhausted due process claims.
See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining that due
process claims, procedural in nature, must be exhausted).
Aoun’s motion to stay proceedings is denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
14-70623 2

-- 2 of 2 --