JUAN GONZALEZ-TORRE, AKA Juan Delatorre-Gonzalez, AKA Juan Gonzalez- De La Torre v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN GONZALEZ-TORRE, AKA Juan
Delatorre-Gonzalez, AKA Juan Gonzalez-
De La Torre,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-72169
Agency No. A090-532-485
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2019**
Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Juan Gonzalez-Torre, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
remand and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision sustaining
the removability charge and denying his applications for cancellation of removal,
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
APR 24 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-72169
asylum, withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”), and adjustment of status. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review de novo questions of law and constitutional claims.
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We review for
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand. Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey,
538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008). We dismiss in part and deny in part the
petition for review.
We do not consider the materials Gonzalez-Torre submitted with his
opening brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79
F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Gonzalez-Torre’s contentions as to the
validity of his conviction for attempted grand larceny under Nevada Revised
Statute §§ 205.220.1, 205.222.2, and 193.330 because this claim functions as an
impermissible collateral attack upon his state court conviction. See Ramirez-
Villalpando v. Holder, 645 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that petitioner
could not collaterally attack his state court conviction on a petition for review of a
BIA decision).
Gonzalez-Torre does not challenge the agency’s determination that he is
ineligible for asylum and cancellation of removal on account of his aggravated
felony conviction. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-72169
1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are
waived). Further, Gonzalez-Torre does not challenge the agency’s determinations
that he failed to meet his burden to establish eligibility for withholding of removal
and relief under CAT. See id.
Our jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary decision to deny
Gonzalez-Torre’s application for adjustment of status is limited to constitutional
claims or questions of law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). To the extent Gonzalez-
Torre challenges the agency’s discretionary denial of adjustment of status, we lack
jurisdiction to review that determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).
Finally, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Gonzalez-Torre’s
motion to remand where Gonzalez-Torre failed to demonstrate that the new
evidence he sought to submit would likely have changed the outcome of his case.
See Shin v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2008) (petitioners who seek to
remand proceedings “bear a ‘heavy burden’ of proving that, if proceedings were
reopened, the new evidence would likely change the result in the case.” (citation
omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --