Guy Afek Ohayon v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GUY AFEK OHAYON,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72631
Agency No. A095-658-113
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 4, 2015 **
Pasadena California
Before: KLEINFELD and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and CARR, Senior District
Judge.***
Petitioner Guy Afek Ohayon seeks review of a Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming the decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”)
FILED
FEB 18 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).
*** The Honorable James G. Carr, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 2 --

ordering Ohayon removed from the United States. We have jurisdiction pursuant
to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
Where, as here, the BIA summarily affirms the IJ without an opinion, we
review the IJ’s decision. Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 2008).
Ohayon was charged with two grounds of removability: unauthorized employment
in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(C)(i); and overstaying a visa in violation of
§ 1227(a)(1)(C)(ii). In his opening brief, Ohayon challenges the visa overstay
charge on due process grounds. Ohayon, however, does not challenge the
unauthorized employment charge, which he admitted before the IJ. In light of
Ohayon’s failure to address this alternate ground of removal, we need not reach his
challenge to the visa overstay charge because the unauthorized employment charge
alone is sufficient to support removal. See Haile v. Holder, 658 F.3d 1122, 1130
(9th Cir. 2011) (denying a petition for review where an alien failed to address an
alternate ground for the BIA’s holding). In his reply brief, Ohayon argues he
should be allowed to withdraw his concession of the visa overstay charge, but he
has failed to present any evidence showing that the “egregious circumstances”
required for such a withdrawal are present. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657
F.3d 820, 831 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --