Jose Antonio Roldan-Barrera v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ANTONIO ROLDAN-BARRERA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 19-71993
Agency No. A205-417-061
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 12, 2021**
Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Jose Antonio Roldan-Barrera, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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 application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
* 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 14 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 19-71993
(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
questions of law. Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016). We
deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Roldan-Barrera does not challenge the agency’s
dispositive bases for denying his claims for asylum and withholding of removal.
See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not
specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, we
deny the petition for review as to his asylum and withholding of removal claims.
In his opening brief, Roldan-Barrera does not contest the BIA’s dispositive
determination that he waived challenge to the IJ’s denial of his CAT claim. See id.
Thus, we also deny the petition for review as to Roldan-Barrera’s CAT claim.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Roldan-Barrera’s contentions regarding
ineffective assistance of counsel because he failed to raise them to the BIA. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction
to review claims not presented to the agency); see also Ontiveros-Lopez v. INS,
213 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring a petitioner who argues ineffective
assistance of counsel to exhaust administrative remedies by first presenting the
issue to the BIA).
We do not consider the materials Roldan-Barrera references in his opening
brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955,

-- 2 of 3 --

3 19-71993
963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (court’s review is limited to the administrative
record).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --