Jose Luis Padilla-Razo v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE LUIS PADILLA-RAZO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-72003
Agency No. A086-917-032
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
January 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jose Luis Padilla-Razo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s order of removal. We deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
FILED
JAN 29 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 2 --

Padilla-Razo has not challenged the agency’s dispositive determination that
he is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) based on his conviction for an
offense relating to a controlled substance, or the agency’s determination that he is
not eligible for relief from removal. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3
(9th Cir. 2011) (issues not raised in opening brief are waived).
Padilla-Razo’s challenge to the agency’s denial of his request for release
from immigration custody on the condition of bond is not properly before us. See
8 U.S.C. § 1226(e); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(d); Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157,
1160 (9th Cir. 2011) (clarifying the proper procedure for challenging a
Casas-Castrillon bond determination).
This dismissal is without prejudice to petitioner’s seeking prosecutorial
discretion or deferred action from the Department of Homeland Security. See
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.
13-72003 2

-- 2 of 2 --