Adalberto Medrano-Rios 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ADALBERTO MEDRANO-RIOS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72183
Agency No. A073-894-080
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.
Adalberto Medrano-Rios, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
FILED
DEC 28 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-72183 2
In his opening brief, Medrano-Rios fails to raise, and therefore waives, any
challenge to the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen on the grounds that his notice
argument was adjudicated in a prior BIA decision, that his motion to apply for
cancellation of removal was untimely, and that cancellation of removal was not
available to aliens in deportation proceedings. 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 Medrano-Rios’ contention that his attorney
committed ineffective assistance of counsel, because Medrano-Rios failed to
exhaust this claim 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.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --