Rigoberto Torres-Salgado v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RIGOBERTO TORRES-SALGADO,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-74014
Agency No. A079-812-667
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 14, 2015**
Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Rigoberto Torres-Salgado, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s order denying his motion to reopen proceedings. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
FILED
OCT 20 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 --

denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo constitutional claims.
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Torres-Salgado’s motion
to reopen for failure to establish prejudice, where he did not submit with his
motion any application for relief or any evidence that he had plausible grounds for
the relief he claims he would have sought. Agyeman v. INS, 296 F.3d 871, 884
(9th Cir. 2002) (in order to obtain relief, petitioner must show that the due process
violation “potentially affect[ed] the outcome of the proceedings”).
We lack jurisdiction over Torres-Salgado’s unexhausted claims that he was
rendered ineffective assistance or that his circumstances warrant equitable tolling
of the filing deadline. Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We
lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative
proceedings before the BIA.”).
We do not consider documents outside the administrative record. See Fisher
v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (the court’s review is limited to
the administrative record).
13-74014 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Torres-Salgado’s remaining contentions that the agency ignored arguments
or improperly analyzed whether his 2003 proceedings constituted a gross
miscarriage of justice are unavailing.
PETITIONER FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
13-74014 3

-- 3 of 3 --