Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
GABRIEL TORRES-HERNANDEZ, AKA Jose Alvarez, AKA Antonio Burgos-Roque, AKA Jabler Campa, AKA Gabriel Torres, AKA Gilbert Torres, AKA Gabriel Torres-Hdez, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM*
Gabriel Torres-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's (“IJ”) decision finding him removable. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand. Taggar v. Holder, 736 F.3d 886, 889 (9th Cir. 2013). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We do not consider new evidence Torres-Hernandez attached to and referenced in his opening brief. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (this court's review is limited to the administrative record).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Torres-Hernandez's past persecution claim and his asserted fear of future harm from a specific cartel claimed for the first time in his opening brief. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust issues in administrative proceedings below).
Torres-Hernandez testified he did not fear harm or torture if he returned to Mexico. Consequently, the IJ did not consider his eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. In his brief to the BIA he asked to have his case remanded. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by not remanding Torres-Hernandez's asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims where he failed to establish prima facie eligibility for asylum. See Garcia v. Holder, 621 F.3d 906, 912 (9th Cir. 2010) (prima facie eligibility is demonstrated by showing a reasonable likelihood that the statutory requirements for relief have been satisfied).
Finally, on September 16, 2015, the court granted a stay of removal pending review. Thus, Torres-Hernandez's additional motion for a stay of removal pending review (Docket Entry No. 11), received on September 24, 2015, is denied as unnecessary.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 15-71148
Decided: December 20, 2016
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)