Joe Luis Echeverria Magana, a.k.a. Luis Lara, a.k.a. Alejandro Mendez v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOE LUIS ECHEVERRIA MAGANA,
a.k.a. Luis Lara, a.k.a. Alejandro Mendez,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-72716
Agency No. A200-158-029
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 24, 2013**
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Joe Luis Echeverria Magana, 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 application for
FILED
SEP 26 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-72716 2
cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Echeverria Magana fails to raise, and therefore waives,
any challenge to the BIA’s determinations with respect to his claim for cancellation
of removal, the IJ’s denial of a continuance, and reinstatement of the IJ’s grant of
voluntary departure. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011)
(a petitioner waives an issue by failing to raise it in the opening brief).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Echeverria Magana’s claim, presented for
the first time on appeal, that he fears persecution in Mexico, because he failed to
exhaust this claim before the BIA. 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.”).
Echeverria Magana’s conclusory assertions regarding the agency
misunderstanding his testimony and unspecified constitutional rights are not
supported by any argument in his opening brief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94
F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed
waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --