Jose Daniel Gomez v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE DANIEL GOMEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-74039
Agency No. A070-943-998
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 Daniel Gomez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for relief from removal.
FILED
AUG 03 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 --

Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in
part the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Gomez does not raise, and therefore has waived, any
challenge to the agency’s determinations that he is removable, and that he failed to
demonstrate eligibility for relief from removal. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d
1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (a petitioner waives an issue by failing to raise it in the
opening brief).
To the extent Gomez contends he is eligible for prosecutorial discretion, we
lack jurisdiction to consider his contention. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d
642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Gomez’s unexhausted contention regarding
his counsel in criminal proceedings. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080
(9th Cir. 2010).
We grant the government’s motion to strike new evidence (Docket Entry
No. 33). See Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365, 371 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining
standard for review of out-of-record evidence).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
14-74039 2

-- 2 of 2 --