Jose Manuel Barajas-Preciado v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE MANUEL BARAJAS-PRECIADO,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-73442
Agency No. A078-031-894
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.
Jose Manuel Barajas-Preciado, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro
se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s order of removal. We have jurisdiction under
FILED
AUG 02 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 3 --

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo question of law, Mohammed v. Gonzales,
400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny the petition for review.
Barajas-Preciado does not challenge that his controlled substance conviction
renders him statutorily ineligible for adjustment of status. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1255(a)(2); 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).
Contrary to Barajas-Preciado’s contention, the agency was not required to
conduct a particularly serious crime analysis or consider the related factors in
Matter of Frentescu, 18 I. & N. Dec. 244, 247 (BIA 1982), in determining his
eligibility for adjustment of status, where his controlled substance conviction
rendered him inadmissible. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a)(2) (status may be adjusted if
alien is “eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is admissible to the United
State” (emphasis added)); cf. Frentescu, 18 I. & N. Dec. at 244 (particularly
serious crime is statutory bar to asylum and withholding).
Contrary to Barajas-Preciado’s contentions, the BIA reached the merits of
his ineffective assistance of counsel claims and properly determined Barajas-
Preciado failed to establish that prior counsel rendered ineffective representation.
See Mohammed, 400 F.3d at 793 (ineffective assistance of counsel claims require
deficient conduct and prejudice).
14-73442 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Barajas-Preciado’s contention that the agency failed to consider the
administrative record is not supported by the record.
In light of this disposition, we do not address Barajas-Preciado’s remaining
contentions regarding Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
14-73442 3

-- 3 of 3 --