Cenobio Arroyo-Murillo v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CENOBIO ARROYO-MURILLO,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-73240
Agency No. A096-602-141
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 15, 2016**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Cenobio Arroyo-Murillo, 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 (“IJ”) removal order denying his request for a
FILED
MAR 21 2016
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 --

continuance. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Before the IJ, Arroyo-Murillo conceded he was ineligible for any relief and
sought only a one-year continuance in the hope of benefitting from comprehensive
immigration reform legislation. The IJ denied the continuance, and Arroyo-
Murillo does not challenge the BIA’s determinations that a continuance was not
warranted and that Arroyo-Murillo’s immigration proceedings comported with due
process. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (issues not
raised in an opening brief are waived).
We lack jurisdiction to review Arroyo-Murillo’s contentions regarding
adjustment of status and a waiver of inadmissability because Arroyo-Murillo did
not file applications for those forms of relief before the IJ or the BIA, see 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(4)(A) (“the court of appeals shall decide the petition only on the
administrative record on which the order of removal is based”), and our review is
limited to the final order of removal, see Aguilar-Turcios v. Holder, 740 F.3d
1294, 1299 (9th Cir. 2014) (“we have jurisdiction to review final orders of removal
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(1)”); Galindo-Romero v. Holder, 640 F.3d 873, 877 (9th
Cir. 2011) (the term “order of removal” refers to the administrative order
“‘concluding that the alien is [removable] or ordering [removal].’” (alterations in
11-73240 2

-- 2 of 3 --

original) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(A))); cf. Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770
F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding that the court had jurisdiction to review the
prior BIA determinations in the case because the final deportation order was
contingent upon them).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
11-73240 3

-- 3 of 3 --