Revat Chaiyayong v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
REVAT CHAIYAYONG,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 16-73531
Agency No. A040-395-978
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 19, 2019**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Revat Chaiyayong, a native and citizen of Thailand, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009,
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
FEB 21 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-73531
1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Chaiyayong’s contention that the BIA erred by making impermissible
findings of fact in rejecting his ineffective assistance of counsel claim is not
supported.
Chaiyayong has not raised, and therefore waives, any challenge to the
agency’s denial of a waiver of inadmissibility under former INA § 212(c). See
Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not
specifically raised and argued in an opening brief are waived).
We lack jurisdiction to review Chaiyayong’s unexhausted contentions
regarding removability. See 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.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --