HARVEY ADOLFO GONZALEZ, AKA Adolfo Gonzalez, AKA Harvey Gonzalez, AKA Harvey A.… v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HARVEY ADOLFO GONZALEZ, AKA
Adolfo Gonzalez, AKA Harvey Gonzalez,
AKA Harvey A. Gonzalez, AKA Harve
Rosales,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-74348
Agency No. A078-347-366
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 22, 2015**
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Harvey Adolfo Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
FILED
JUN 30 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and
cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales,
453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Gonzalez established
changed circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. §
1208.4(a)(4); see also Ramadan v. Gonzalez, 479 F.3d 646, 656-58 (9th Cir. 2007)
(per curiam). Thus, we deny Gonzalez’s petition as to his asylum claim.
Gonzalez does not raise any arguments challenging the agency’s rejection of
his withholding of removal, CAT, or cancellation of removal claims. See
Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised in a
brief that are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”).
Gonzalez requests that we reopen and remand his case based on “newly
discovered facts” and potential eligibility for adjustment of status or relief pursuant
to NACARA. We lack jurisdiction to consider these claims, which Gonzalez must
first present to the agency. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2; 1003.43.
13-74348 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Finally, Gonzalez’s claim that his case warrants prosecutorial discretion is
not subject to judicial review. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th
Cir. 2012) (order).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
13-74348 3

-- 3 of 3 --