JUAN COLIN-COSS, AKA Juan Coss, AKA Colin Hernandez, AKA Juan Hernandez-Guerrero v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN COLIN-COSS, AKA Juan Coss,
AKA Colin Hernandez, AKA Juan
Hernandez-Guerrero,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-71190
Agency No. A074-579-496
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 19, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Juan Colin-Coss, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT
* 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 28 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-71190
protection”), and cancellation of removal for certain nonpermanent residents. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due
process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738
(9th Cir. 2014). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
Colin-Coss does not raise any argument challenging the agency’s dispositive
determinations that he was statutorily ineligible for asylum because his asylum
application was untimely, that he failed to establish a protected ground was or will
be a reason for the harm he experienced or fears, that he failed to demonstrate it is
more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence
of the government if returned to Mexico, and that he did not qualify for
cancellation of removal. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80
(9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in an opening brief are
waived). Thus, Colin-Coss’s asylum, withholding of removal, CAT, and
cancellation of removal claims fail.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Colin-Coss’s contentions as to a previously
approved visa and his mental health status because he failed to raise those issues
before the BIA. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We
lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative
proceedings before the BIA.”); Agyeman v. INS, 296 F.3d 871, 877 (9th Cir. 2002)
(“[W]e may not entertain due process claims based on correctable procedural

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-71190
errors unless the alien raised them below.”). To the extent Colin-Coss contends the
BIA failed to properly consider the record in its analysis of his claims, the record
does not support Colin-Coss’s contention. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d
592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not overcome the presumption that the BIA
reviewed the record).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --