Eliseo Artero-Flores v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELISEO ARTERO-FLORES,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71234
Agency No. A088-108-959
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Eliseo Artero-Flores, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum
and withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
FILED
JAN 28 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 --

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.
Artero-Flores does not challenge the agency’s dispositive determination that
his asylum application was time-barred. See Martinez–Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d
1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not addressed in opening brief are deemed
waived). He also fails to challenge the BIA’s conclusion that he did not request
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) before the IJ or raise any
arguments in favor of CAT relief. See id. Thus, we deny the petition as to asylum
and CAT.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Artero-Flores’s unexhausted claim that he
was mistreated on account of his whistleblowing. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d
674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). He does not otherwise challenge the BIA’s determination
that he failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground. Thus, Artero-Flores’s
withholding of removal claim fails.
Finally, the record does not support Artero-Flores’s claim that the BIA failed
to adequately review the IJ’s decision.
This dismissal is without prejudice to petitioner’s seeking prosecutorial
discretion or deferred action from the Department of Homeland Security. See
10-71234 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (AADC), 525 U.S. 471,
483-85 (1999) (stating that prosecutorial discretion by the agency can be granted at
any stage, including after the conclusion of judicial review).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
10-71234 3

-- 3 of 3 --