Jorge Plascencia-Fernandez v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

17-70572Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFeb 21, 2019

Full text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JORGE PLASCENCIA-FERNANDEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 17-70572
Agency No. A200-807-159
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 19, 2019**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Jorge Plascencia-Fernandez, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his request for a continuance and
ordering him removed. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny
in part and dismiss 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
FEB 21 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-70572
To the extent Plascencia-Fernandez challenges the agency’s denial of
cancellation of removal and his request for a continuance, he has waived these
contentions, because he advances no argument to support them. See Martinez-
Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised in a brief
that are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”)
We lack jurisdiction to consider Plascencia-Fernandez’s unexhausted
contentions that the IJ violated due process or that his former representative was
ineffective. 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); Correa-Rivera v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1128, 1130
(9th Cir. 2013) (ineffective assistance of counsel claims can be raised by filing a
motion to reopen with the agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.