Garfield Greenwood, a.k.a Errol Brown, a.k.a. Ivan Daniel 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
GARFIELD GREENWOOD, a.k.a Errol
Brown, a.k.a. Ivan Daniel,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-71712
Agency No. A076-186-391
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 24, 2013**
Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Garfield Greenwood, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is
FILED
JUL 31 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-71712 2
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s
factual findings. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We
deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA denied Greenwood’s withholding of removal claim on adverse
credibility grounds. The BIA also denied Greenwood’s CAT claim on adverse
credibility grounds, and found the country conditions evidence did not show he
was otherwise eligible for CAT relief. In his opening brief, Greenwood does not
meaningfully challenge these finding. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,
1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues that are not specifically raised and argued in a
party’s opening brief are waived). We do not reach his arguments regarding the
merits. See Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2004) (“we consider
only the grounds relied upon” by the BIA).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Greenwood’s ineffective assistance of
counsel claim because he did not exhaust this claim before the BIA. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part, DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --