Eddie Rudy Ramirez v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDDIE RUDY RAMIREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-70648
Agency No. A206-409-636
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Eddie Rudy Ramirez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for relief and ordering
removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
* 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
OCT 3 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-70648
questions of law, and we review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings. See Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005);
Quijada-Aguilar v. Lynch, 799 F.3d 1303, 1305 (9th Cir. 2015). We deny in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Ramirez has not challenged the BIA’s denial of asylum as untimely filed.
See Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to
contest issue in opening brief resulted in waiver).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of relief under the
Convention Against Torture, where Ramirez failed to show it was more likely than
not that a government official in Guatemala would torture him or consent or
acquiesce to his torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1), Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d
829, 835 (9th Cir. 2011).
The agency did not err in determining Ramirez’s conviction for possession
of cocaine under Cal. Health and Safety Code § 11350(a) renders him inadmissible
under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). He is therefore statutorily ineligible for
cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C). Because his conviction
involved cocaine, he is not eligible for a waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1182(h) (waiving inadmissibility for “a single offense of simple possession of 30
grams or less of marijuana”). Accordingly, he is also ineligible to adjust status
under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a)(2), because he is inadmissible.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-70648
We lack jurisdiction to consider Ramirez’s unexhausted contentions
regarding post-conviction relief. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th
Cir. 2010) (the court lacks jurisdiction to consider legal claims not presented in an
alien’s administrative proceedings before the agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --