Victor Hugo Martinez- Jaramillo 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
VICTOR HUGO MARTINEZ-
JARAMILLO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-70751
Agency No. A030-700-636
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 19, 2012**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Victor Hugo Martinez-Jaramillo, a native and citizen of Ecuador, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. Our jurisdiction is
FILED
DEC 21 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-70751 2
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v.
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in
part the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Martinez-Jaramillo fails to address, and therefore has
waived any challenge to, the BIA’s determination that he is statutorily ineligible
for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(c)(6), and for adjustment of
status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a)(3). See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,
1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues which are not specifically raised and argued in a
party’s opening brief are waived).
We need not consider Martinez-Jaramillo’s claim that his convictions for
burglary and petty theft are not crimes involving moral turpitude because he failed
to raise this issue before this court in his prior petition for review. See Christian
Legal Soc. Chapter of University of California v. Wu, 626 F.3d 483, 488 (9th Cir.
2010) (petitioner who fails to raise an issue in previous petition for review is not
entitled to “a second bite at the appellate apple”).
Martinez-Jamarillo’s contention that the agency violated due process by
failing to consider his proof of rehabilitation is rejected.

-- 2 of 3 --

11-70751 3
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination that Martinez-
Jamarillo did not merit voluntary departure as a matter of discretion. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229c(f) (“No court shall have jurisdiction over an appeal from denial of a
request for an order of voluntary departure”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --