NOEL NAVA-MENDOZA, AKA Noel Mendoza Nava, AKA Noel Nava v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NOEL NAVA-MENDOZA, AKA Noel
Mendoza Nava, AKA Noel Nava,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 15-70916
Agency No. A205-722-185
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 16, 2016**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Noel Nava-Mendoza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s final order of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
* 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).
FILED
AUG 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-70916
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
Nava-Mendoza failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a
qualifying relative, and is therefore ineligible for cancellation of removal. See
Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005).
To the extent that Nava-Mendoza challenges the consideration of his
criminal history in the agency’s determination, this history did not factor into the
dispositive hardship determination, and therefore we need not address it. See
Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004).
Nava-Mendoza failed to address his claims for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture in his opening brief, and
declined to file a supplemental brief addressing these claims when given the
opportunity to do so by this court. See Docket Entry No. 11. As such, he has
waived any challenge to the agency’s determination that he failed to establish
eligibility for these forms of relief. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3
(9th Cir. 2011) (issues not raised in the opening brief are waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --